Excuse #1
Excuse #11
Excuse #13
Excuse #15
Excuse #17
Excuse #23
Excuse #25
Excuse #29
Excuse #33
Excuse #35
Excuse #45
Excuse #49
Excuse #55
Excuse #57
Excuse #59
Excuse #2
Excuse #8
Excuse #24
Excuse #28
Excuse #30
Excuse #32
Excuse #34
Excuse #40
Excuse #44
Excuse #48
#1
Non-human animals procreate so why can’t we procreate? It’s a natural part of life.
This excuse claims that because non-human animals (from now on: animals) engage in procreation, it is therefore morally permissible for humans, who are also animals, to also engage in procreation. In other words, if animals engage in behaviour x, then behaviour x is morally permissible for humans to engage in.
The key flaw in this argument is that animals engage in many behaviours, such as infanticide and rape, that the vast majority of people would condemn. Given the fact that animals engage in behaviours that would be deemed both acceptable, such as cooperation and sharing, and unacceptable, such as those previously mentioned, in the human context, we cannot use them as a reliable standard for judging the morality of human behaviour.
To select specific animal behaviours and hold them up as justifications for our own behaviours whilst also ignoring other animal behaviours that we would condemn, commits the ‘cherry-picking’ fallacy. In fact, given that we can distinguish between animal behaviours that would be acceptable and unacceptable in the human context, we clearly have some other moral standard to judge human behaviours; so why not just use that standard?
On the fact of procreation being natural, the argument has the same flaw. It is indeed natural to procreate, but just because something is natural, this does not mean it is morally justified. In nature we find things that would be considered both good (e.g. altruism, cooperation, compassion) and bad (e.g. infanticide, rape, eating someone alive) to have in the human context, and so we cannot use the fact that something is natural to prove that it is either good or bad; this is what is known as the ‘appeal to nature’ fallacy.
#2
If we don’t continue to procreate then humans will eventually go extinct. So we have to procreate to keep the species going!
When this excuse arises, you need to be ready for the conversation to go down a different path. The question of the conversation now becomes, ‘Is it ethical for the human species to go extinct?’
There’s an interesting conversation to be had about whether it is ethical for humans to go extinct without considering the implications of that for animals in the wild. However, it’s probably best to just deal with human extinction itself for now.
Usually, when someone opposes extinction they are coming from a collectivist and sentimental perspective, not a reasoned one. More often than not, their objection goes something like this: “We can’t let humans go extinct because there is some quality humans possess that means they must persist, even if this means individual people sacrificing something”. As we’ve seen throughout history, prioritising the interests of the group above that of the individual often leads to great moral atrocities, and you don’t need much imagination to guess how that may play out in this instance. To further the conversation, you really need to ask them questions such as “Why do humans need to exist?” and “If extinction occurred as a natural result of individual people choosing not to procreate, what would be wrong with it?”.
These conversations are interesting to have, but ultimately it is best to bring the conversation back to what the person you are talking to has control over: their own behaviour.
#3
Everyone else will just keep procreating though, so me stopping won’t make any difference; I might as well procreate.
Of course, one person abstaining from procreation will not significantly reduce the total number of new people being brought into existence. However, whether an action is ethical or not does not depend on its popularity, and we are not accountable for what others do, we are accountable for what we do, regardless of what others do. For example, this line of reasoning, if we choose to accept it, would also justify the killing of non-human animals for food: ‘I might as well keep paying for animals to be killed and eat their corpses because everyone else does it; me stopping won’t reduce the total number of animals killed anyway.’ See the issue?!
This argument aims to remove any moral accountability from the proponent merely by virtue of people around them engaging in an action. We must remember that if we choose to ‘blend into normality’, it is not just ourselves our apathy towards morality is impacting; our actions impact others, and even if we stick our head in the sand regarding the consequences, this doesn’t change the harm that is being inflicted on others. Sure, you can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
Humans claim to be the species that understands right from wrong above all other species – the most intelligent species – and yet we find humans, instead of wanting to address an issue, attempting to excuse their contribution to it by appealing to the fact that other people do it too. If this is not a moral failing, I don’t know what is.
#4
We have reproductive systems for a reason; we are supposed to procreate.
The fact that we have the ability to procreate doesn’t tell us anything about whether we should procreate. Our anatomy equips us with the ability to perform many acts that we would find morally abhorrent; surely we should be thinking beyond our capacity for something and to whether it is the right thing to do?
Some people may say: ‘Well, the reproductive system is a special case as it only has one use, whereas other body parts can be used for multiple things we can choose between. So we have to use it for that.’ Again, the same applies; whether an organ has one function or many, there is no reason we need to employ its function. They, or it, can simply go unused.
Most people will admit that there are at least some circumstances in which it would be unethical to procreate: if the child were to have a debilitating genetic disease that resulted in them experiencing a short life of intense suffering. This acknowledgement, that there are in fact circumstances where we should abstain from procreation, demonstrates that simply having the ability to procreate does not justify the act of procreation. If we were to accept the argument that procreation is morally justified by virtue of the fact that ‘we have reproductive systems for a reason’, then all births would be justified; including those resulting in offspring that lead lives not worth living (even by natalist standards).
#5
My religion says it’s okay to procreate.
Many people have strong religious convictions, and a lot of these people believe that because they hold these religious convictions they have the right to control others in some way. This is a very dangerous idea and one that many of those advancing it will in fact reject upon some reflection (or resort to special pleading).
If we accept that we can do something to someone else because our religion says it is permissible to do so, then to be consistent we must also accept that others can do something to us because their religion says it is permissible to do so. Some people, for example, state that they should be able to execute homosexuals because homosexuality is condemned in their religion, but would these same people accept someone else stating that they should be able to execute homophobes (i.e. them) because homophobia is condemned in their religion? Probably not. Most people would agree that once we appreciate that this excuse swings both ways it becomes less appealing to use.
When someone procreates, they are doing something that involves someone else, and religious conviction – as we’ve established – is not a valid moral justification. Also, it is irrelevant whether the action being engaged in involving someone else is one that you would personally be fine with happening to you because the other person may not want it done to them. Procreating, especially if the natalist believes in a concept of hell, is putting someone in the line of fire. Whether someone would want to take this risk for themselves or not is irrelevant, their religion does not justify them taking that risk for someone else.
#6
If we stop procreating, who is going to take care of and support the last generation? We need one generation to look after the next.
This is an interesting excuse. Whilst it doesn’t justify procreation, it does highlight a valid issue that needs addressing.
First, why doesn’t it justify procreation? Bringing someone into existence merely so they can serve a purpose, because they have some utility, is something even natalists would mostly reject. If we follow this line of logic, we would be justified to bring beings into existence for other purposes as long as it leads to the betterment of people who already exist. This can lead to many morally objectionable acts. Would we be justified to breed people into existence so they can fill the factories and the fields to maintain our standard of living? Most honest people would acknowledge that this would not be justified, and instead what we should do is recognise that life is not a perfect situation and we need to deal with obstacles (such as getting old) as best we can, but it doesn’t mean we can bring new beings into existence to solve our problems. Children are not slaves here to cater for others.
Note: An exception to this rule, when it could be argued this is morally permissible, is that of continuing the human species with the view of addressing wild animal suffering. A key difference between this situation and that of ‘taking care of the elderly’ is that the proposed solution to the problem is not itself the root of the problem – whereas breeding people to support other people is.
Now, the issue of taking care of the elderly as part of what would be the last generation. Honestly, as far as we are aware currently, this doesn’t have a perfect solution. It can be reasonably assumed that as we close down systems that support bringing people into existence, more people will then move into systems that cater for, or research ways to support, people exiting it. It is a hill we will have to climb, we will have to organise society in a way that can self-cater as much as possible even as it shrinks. Maybe we won’t be able to find a perfect solution.
#7
There is so much suffering in the world, me having a child is not going to have an impact in the grand scheme of things.
What this excuse claims is that because the totality of suffering in the world is so large, their contribution to it is not significant enough to warrant them making ‘sacrifices’ to the enjoyment and fulfilment of their life; the suffering they cause is just a ‘drop in the ocean’.
However, what this argument justifies, probably unconsciously on the part of the proponent, is virtually any individual immorality that can be committed, because all of them are a ‘drop in the ocean’. For example, this same argument could be used by someone to justify them burning someone’s house down unprovoked, merely for their own enjoyment. It would in fact be the case that the suffering resulting from that house being burnt down is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the totality of suffering, but that doesn’t justify that individual action. This argument essentially seeks to absolve anyone of their personal responsibility to reasonably refrain from doing harm to others.
What should also be noted is that the act of one individual person, in the case of having a child but not just limited to that, can result in colossal amounts of suffering and injustice. If we take the example of having a child, you aren’t just having that child, you are opening up a potential doorway to hundreds (maybe more) of new generations; this is not to be callously disregarded.
#8
My child could find the cure for cancer or achieve some other great thing.
There are several ways you can handle this excuse:
This child would be brought into existence to solve an issue that itself is a result of existence. Bringing people into existence to solve an issue that is caused by people existing seems like carrying dry wood into a burning house. The child in question is much more likely to suffer from cancer themselves than to be the one that cures it. Instead of pumping more people into a world full of these issues, why not focus more on unlocking the potential of people who already exist? We are essentially attempting to do everything in our power to minimise the harm that someone encounters when we are the ones that put them in harm’s way in the first place. Why not just not put them into harm’s way?
The child could find the cure for cancer – although the chances are extremely slim – but they could also end up being a serial killer, or commit a terrorist attack. No one ever thinks of this when they are bringing someone into existence. When this excuse is advanced it is often within the framing of ‘Well my child could cure cancer, and if they don’t it doesn’t matter’. But, this isn’t the case, they could do good things, and they could also do heinous things as well, it is not ‘they may cure cancer or they may not’, it is ‘they may cure cancer or they may fly a plane into a building or they may become a con artist’ etcetera. This response is less of a slam dunk and more of a removal of the rose-tinted naivety the person is viewing their potential actions through.
Let’s assume this person can provide the conditions that would result in their child likely curing cancer. Why not adopt? There are millions of young people alive today not fulfilling their potential because of a lack of opportunity or resources. Instead of creating someone new, adopt someone who already exists.
#9
I need a family to support me in my old age otherwise I will become lonely and suffer from a lack of support.
People who forward this excuse do deserve empathy. It’s true, none of us asked to be here, none of us opted in for the burden of old age and the loneliness that often comes with it. However, this is not a reason to bring new people into existence.
Why doesn’t it justify procreation? Bringing someone into existence merely so they can serve a purpose, because they have some utility, is something even natalists would mostly reject. If we follow this line of logic, we would be justified to bring beings into existence for other purposes as long as it leads to the betterment of people who already exist. Would we be then justified to breed people into existence so they can fill the factories and the fields to facilitate our standard of living? Most honest people would acknowledge that this would not be justified. Children are not slaves here to cater for others.
Instead, we should recognise that life is not a perfect situation and focus on finding and building other ways to meet this need that are non-exploitative:
Build a community with others your age so that when you are elderly you can share in that experience with them.
Find an existing institution that provides community/care for elderly people.
Adopt a non-human animal out of concern for their vulnerable situation and their needs and appreciate that a bonus will be a companion that you can find emotional support in.
Adopt a human out of concern for their vulnerable situation and their needs. In the future they may reciprocate and show concern for your needs.
#10
Having children is all I want in life, without children my life is meaningless.
This excuse comes from a very understandable place. Humans, just like all other sentient beings, have an innate desire to procreate. Many people do base their lives around that biological drive to reproduce and then live as part of a (biological) family. However, this of course does not change the ethics of procreation.
It is probably first worth recognising that it isn’t particularly healthy to place your source of meaning in the hands of another individual, whether they exist or not. For the vast majority of people, it is probably beneficial to be self-sufficient (not rely on the actions of others) in where they draw meaning from. Either way, just because someone draws meaning from something does not mean they get to enact whatever they wish on another. For example (albeit an extreme one), serial killers can draw great meaning from killing their victims but no one would use this sense of meaning to justify the action committed.
However, having said this, the proponent of this excuse does not have to go without, there are alternatives. One obvious avenue is adoption. There are millions of parentless children around the world, adopting one and raising them provides almost exactly the same source of meaning. It should be said that adoption should be viewed through the needs of those being adopted, not the fulfilment the person adopting them receives. Another option is finding strong community or a cause you are passionate about. Having a community surrounding you or a cause outside of yourself to advance can help suppress or even remove a ‘need’ to procreate as you can draw meaning from the interactions and relationships you have with those in your community or the achievements you make for your cause.
#11
I can give my children a good life with relatively little suffering, so it’s fine to have them.
Let’s assume the proponent of this excuse lives in an affluent area, sheltered from the pains of most peoples’ (let alone non-human animals) existence. Even if someone is going to bring someone into existence into relative affluence, there is no practical circumstance in the world we live in that can guarantee that a life will be worth living. In the current state of our existence there is always the risk of someone being brought into a world that for them is not worth living.What about the people who are born with severe depression? What about those born with a chronic disease – or who contract one early on in life – that causes them intense suffering? Affluence may reduce some risk, but will not eradicate it. No matter how small the chance is of these things happening, if there is a chance that their life is not worth living and it is unnecessary to bring them into existence then it’s not someone else’s place to take that risk for them, especially when there is nothing to be gained from that risk being taken (they do not benefit from coming into existence as they have no interest in existing).
Life is simply a series of needs – many of which we are ill-equipped to cater for – that we must meet so that we can keep ill-health at bay. It is completely illogical to create needs that don’t need to exist, especially when we can only meet those needs ineffectively.
This excuse also excludes a consideration of the actions of others on someone’s well-being. This world is full of rapists, murderers, terrorists and more. Forcing someone into existence is simply rolling the dice for them and naively hoping it goes well. Plus, they could also be the source of pain for others; what is stopping them from becoming a school shooter or a serial rapist?
#12
Eventually we’ll innovate suffering out of existence. Then there won’t be any problem, surely?
Sure, one day humans may invent some means of removing suffering from existence, but this is not a reason to bring new beings into existence.
First off, we don’t know whether we will ever be able to innovate suffering out of existence, or if that is even possible; but, for the sake of argument, let’s assume we could. Why would we put significant energy (which this venture is almost guaranteed to require) into eradicating the suffering of future beings whom don’t exist? Their suffering would only exist if they do. It seems ludicrous to bring beings into existence – where we put them in harm’s way – and then try to mitigate the harm they encounter, when we can just not put them into harm’s way in the first place. It seems more logical, and ethical, to not bring new beings into existence and use the effort we would have spent mitigating their suffering, mitigating the suffering of beings who already exist.
Again, let’s assume we can eradicate suffering in the future and that we should aim towards that, we are completely ignoring the fact that there will be intermediate generations between now and that point. These generations, likely containing billions of individuals, will come into existence to get us to this point and they will be put in harm’s way. Was it fair for people to be forced into life in Medieval England so that now we can enjoy a life with smart phones and televisions? Who are we to put someone else in harm’s way for the cause of eradicating the suffering of generations that don’t even exist (their existence being the thing that would create the suffering in the first place). We are putting sentient beings in harm’s way to solve a problem that doesn’t even need to exist.
#13
We’ve always procreated. It is normal and always has been.
We have indeed always procreated, but does the fact that we have always done something mean we are justified in continuing to do it? Just because we have always done something doesn’t mean it’s an ethical thing to do, or continue doing. For example, we have always killed each other for trivial reasons, but the vast majority of people would not use the fact that we have always done this to justify killing someone for a trivial reason today.
On the point of procreation being normal: it is. However, just because something is normalised in our society, and not doing it may even incur social stigma, doesn’t mean that it is the moral thing to do. Doing what everyone else is doing regardless of whether it is right is conformity, not morality. As Booker T. Washington said:
“A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good just because it’s accepted by the majority.”
As an example, whilst human slavery still exists today it is not considered an amoral action; it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of people on ethical grounds as immoral. However, it used to be normal, in every society, usually on a mass scale. Things that we all condemn as immoral acts were once normal. It is our duty today to identify which immoralities are normalised and reject them.
#14
I’ll do my part by only having one child. That’s better than having three or four.
It isn’t the case that you either have multiple children or just one; everyone has the ability to not have any. Of course, having one child is not as unethical as having 2 or 7 or 10 children, but you are still having that one child. The morality of having a child is not relative to some made up number of potential children you could have. Whether you only ever planned to have one child or 15 children, the ethical question of having that one child is the same.
By way of an analogy, would it be ethical for someone to assault a child for their own trivial enjoyment if they gave the justification of ‘Well I didn’t assault 15 children’? No, of course not; it doesn’t matter how many bad things you could do, each thing you do stands on its own merits and you should be evaluated accordingly. This excuse seemingly is advanced in the hope that it comes across as a reasonable compromise (between them and who I’m not sure), but of course it isn’t.
We also need to recognise that having even one child is not just having one child. It is opening up the possibility of a lineage hundreds of generations long that could result in thousands of new people being brought into existence; each of them themselves being imposed upon.
#15
It’s selfish not to have children. I’m sure you’re glad to be alive, why would you deprive someone else of the chance of life?
Not procreating isn’t depriving someone of life because that person doesn’t exist, they aren’t in some nether region gazing down on Earth wishing they were alive, they just don’t exist; if they don’t exist, how can they be deprived? There is no one to be deprived.
It is procreation that is selfish. People do not procreate for the sake of the child – the non-existent child doesn’t benefit from coming into existence – they do it to satisfy their own desires, and they put someone in harm’s way in the process. Surely that is the selfish act, to feel like you are entitled to create an entirely new being who has needs to fulfil and dangers to now avoid just so you can fulfil some desire or meet some need you have. Let's take this excuse to its logical conclusion. If we genuinely were acting immorally by not procreating, and therefore depriving someone of existence, surely then we would be duty bound to have as many children as possible (or at least enough that we have resources enough to support)?
The fact that you or I may be glad to be alive right now is likely a combination of our biological drive to want to continue existing (to then procreate, in evolutionary terms) and the lucky situation we find ourselves in where we have a decent enough life (relatively speaking) to think that.
#16
That is just your depressive worldview, you need to look at the good side of life.
Whether done intentionally or not, this excuse serves to dodge the arguments for non-procreation and focus instead on a potential bias that you as an individual may have (somewhat of a genetic fallacy). An argument should be considered on its own merits, irrespective of the biases of the person putting it forward; if their biases have resulted in them putting forward a faulty argument then addressing the argument directly will expose this anyway.
Ignoring the fact that procreation is quite literally one person imposing their world view onto someone else (i.e. what if they don’t have as much a positive view of existence as their parent?), let’s address the excuse itself. On the point of ‘looking at the good side of life’, this insinuates that antinatalists have not taken into account any of the pleasurable experiences (or ‘good’ things) in life and that if they had, life would not seem like such a bad thing to experience. This excuse is one that really misses the core issue. Yes, we can experience both good and bad things in life, but the point is that the proponent of this excuse doesn’t have the right to roll the dice for someone else, especially when there is nothing to be gained from that risk being taken (i.e. they do not benefit from coming into existence); it is not their place to just choose to create someone because they want to.
#17
If life is so bad then why not just kill yourself?
The key distinction this excuse is missing is the distinction between preventing someone from coming into existence and removing someone from existence. If, for whatever reason, someone is brought into existence, the game changes. Now they have interests, they have preferences, they experience. For anyone who already exists, we should try to increase their potential for wellbeing and decrease their risk of suffering. Of course we will not be able to do this perfectly but we should attempt to make everyone’s time on this planet as devoid of suffering as reasonably possible. This means, if someone wants to die, if their life has come to a point where it is so unbearable that a graceful exit from existence would be better, then that is their choice.
There are, of course, many practical reasons (beyond that of simply wanting to continue their life) antinatalists would want to stay alive as well: to spread awareness of anti-procreative ethics and to promote the recognition of non-human animal’s moral rights, as just two examples.
On another note, this excuse actually goes to prove how immoral procreation really is. Here is an analogous situation to explain this point:
Imagine you’re walking home one night and some men pull up and bundle you into the back of their car and speed off down the motorway. You plead with them, terrified, suffering, and ask, “Why are you doing this? Where are you taking me? How could you do this?” and they just reply, “Don’t like it? We’ve left the door unlocked. If you don’t like it, just jump out. But don’t blame us for putting you here, we’re not forcing you to stay – there’s the door, if what we’re doing to you is so bad, just jump out.”
#18
Don’t try to impose your beliefs on me, it’s my personal choice whether I procreate or not.
This excuse is interesting. Just like it is technically someone’s personal choice whether they go to the nearest park and assault a child, or kill non-human animals for food, it is technically their personal choice whether they procreate or not. That is not the issue however, the issue is whether it is ethical to do so; the question is whether we should be doing these things.
What is likely the case is that the proponent of this excuse is using the term ‘personal choice’ in the manner of it being outside of the moral realm – like choosing what your favourite song is or what poetry to read – something that doesn’t warrant moral scrutiny. This is not the case though; the choice that is being made is directly impacting someone else. It is a gamble with someone else’s wellbeing and very much within the moral realm. So it is not enough to just say ‘It is a personal choice’ and think you can do whatever you want. You have the power to create a new being and so you have the responsibility not to.
#19
Children should be grateful that they exist.
When someone makes this statement it would be appropriate to ask a series of clarifying questions: “Which children? The ones that are sex trafficked? The ones that are ripped open by terrorist attacks? The ones hit by a car at a young age and left with lasting pain? The ones born with depression?” Whenever we bring a new being into existence we push them into the firing line of all of these dangers. Sure, the shot may not hit the target, and we may be able to mitigate these ills and terrors, but it was never our place to put them in that position in the first place. Even if the chance that they will be born with a horrible degenerative disease is tiny, why would you take that chance when there are so many children out there that already exist and need adopting?
We gamble with their wellbeing for one thing: to satisfy our biological desire to reproduce, and that is not something children should be grateful for. If anything we should be grateful our children don’t hold us to account more.
#20
You should really be focusing your time on helping people who already exist, not all this crazy stuff about people who don’t even exist.
There are completely valid causes to pursue in working to improve the quality of life for those already in existence – and they should be pursued – but we should not ignore the moral emergency of continuing to bring more beings into existence; we can focus on both. Tackle any issue you like that exists today, just don’t have children and don’t encourage others to.
If you think about it, you’ll have more time and resources to tackle the issue you choose to work on if you don’t procreate. Plus, not procreating will reduce the number of humans, and non-humans, that would potentially experience disasters and ill-health such as famine, drought, disease etc.
It is also the case that reducing the number of people being brought into existence, over time, will generally free up resources for those already in existence. Not having children will mean that there are less ‘competitors’ for resources; so, those that we are trying to help whom already exist will likely have more resources at their disposal – and we will too to help them – that would have otherwise gone to cater for new people being born.
#21
You wouldn’t exist to have this conversation if you weren’t born.
An astute observation! Indeed, the person they are talking to would not exist if their parents hadn’t brought them into existence. However, the fact that their parents did bring them into existence – and as a result they are now talking to whoever put forward this excuse – has literally no bearing on whether the decision they made to do so was ethical or not. It is a fact of reality that we live in a society where natalism is the norm and is subscribed to without critical thought. We are evolutionarily predisposed to want to reproduce and it isn’t the fault of the individual that their parents walked the path of reproduction without question.
What is also true is that now that the person this excuse is being put to does exist, it is better to have as many conversations about anti-procreative ethics as possible (or partake in some other form of anti-procreative activism) in an attempt to convince others to not reproduce. It’s essentially making the best of a bad situation and trying to do some good with the situation you’ve been given. The conversation being had with the proponent of this excuse is one of those conversations.
#22
Pain is subjective. What you see as suffering may not be the same for your child.
For the most part, this excuse seems to be a last ditch attempt to justify procreation in the form of an assertion that has no grounding in reality. What it attempts to assert is that despite all humans – and other animals too – having the same nervous system and experiencing pain in a similar manner (apart from perhaps the rare genetic abnormality), their child is somehow going to experience pain in a new way that is significantly different enough from our experience that it would be irrational of us to use our own experience, research and knowledge as a reference point. Either their offspring’s nervous system will take a different anatomical form or they will experience ‘pain’ via a different mechanism other than the nervous system.
The fact is, we have no good reason to think that their child, or any other new being coming into existence for that matter, is going to experience pain differently. We have no reason to think they will be born with a significantly different nervous system, or some new anatomical feature, that generates a different form of pain or changes how they experience it. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence demonstrates to us that they will be born, just like literally everyone else, with the same nervous system as the rest of us and will experience pain in the same way as all of us. Of course, we all have different emotional temperaments and we have different likes and dislikes, but we all share the fundamentals: if you cut my hand off…I’m gonna feel it and it’s going to hurt.
#23
Who are you to tell me what to do?
This is really a non-point that people – whether consciously or not – use to try to abdicate their personal responsibility on a given moral issue. It is to avoid being held accountable by someone else and them having to justify their actions or beliefs. A murderer or a rapist or a child abuser could equally say ‘Who are you to tell me what to do?’ As Michael Shermer said:
“It is no longer acceptable to simply assert your moral beliefs; you have to provide reasons for them, and those reasons had better be grounded in rational argument and empirical evidence or else they will likely be ignored and rejected.”
We need to quickly move the conversation back onto the core issue so that we can expose the proponent of this excuse to more rebuttals and general anti-procreative ethics. If the conversation is salvageable, then moving it on could be done like this:
“I’m sorry if it came across as though I am trying to tell you what to do, I’m not. All I’m trying to do is present you with a way of thinking about this topic that you may not have encountered before. I completely understand it may feel uncomfortable, most people I’ve spoken to about this have felt that it is a totally foreign idea, but what they found it is that after really considering it for some time it kind of began to make sense. What aspect of antinatalism is the part you are having the most friction with at the moment?”
Then at this point you move them straight into thinking about something else and you can further the conversation.
#24
But you will just be reincarnated. So if you don’t personally procreate it won’t change anything.
So, let’s steel man this position and just assume, for the sake of argument, that reincarnation is in fact true. If reincarnation is true, why would someone be indifferent to beings coming back into existence over and over again? We know – this is not up for debate – that whenever someone comes into existence their wellbeing is being gambled with. They didn’t choose this, someone else forced them into this position, and they could end up living a short life of truly unbearable suffering. So, surely, even within the framework of reincarnation we would want to try and reduce, as much as possible, the number of sentient vessels through which beings can be perpetually brought back into the meat grinder of life? Less beings will then be reincarnated back into existence and therefore there are less beings to be a victim of child abuse or someone with a severe disability or someone who dies of starvation at a young age.
Tupac Shakur once said:
“My only fear of death is coming back reincarnated.”
Now, Tupac may or may not have been saying this as an antinatalist, but it’s a quote that really highlights the point. Who on Earth would wish upon anyone to constantly be thrown into existence, each time being frogmarched into the firing line? We should be avoiding this from happening and thus reducing the chances of the bullets hitting their mark.
#25
This is a very dangerous idea! You should be careful talking about it.
The first thing we need to recognise is that the philosophy of antinatalism in and of itself is not dangerous. On the contrary, what is dangerous is life and bringing new sentient beings into existence. Are non-existent beings in danger? No, because they don’t exist to be endangered. Bringing new beings into existence – blinded by optimism bias – is what is fuelling many of the dangers in the world (e.g. war, disease, rape etc) and creating new beings to be subjected to them. If there were no one to be subjected to a danger then it would no longer become dangerous!
Having said all that, we do also need to recognise that humans can contort and manipulate philosophies to enact evils and this could indeed happen with antinatalism; however, this does not delegitimise the philosophy itself. History shows us that both good-faith and bad-faith actors can and have been the cause of great suffering whilst being guided by principles and philosophies that do not necessitate, or even encourage, repression and violence. If we take the principle of equality as an example. The majority of us take this principle to mean everyone, no matter arbitrary characteristics like sex, race, nationality etc, should have equal opportunity under the law. The same principle can become contorted by totalitarian parties when they attempt to enforce an equality of outcome, which can and has lead to extremely repressive regimes.
#26
What about all the art and beauty we have created in the world? That will all be lost!
Humans have created glorious structures, works of art, music and literature that we find beautiful, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no inherent ‘beauty’ quality that things can have, it is merely a perception we have of things. We gain pleasure from certain sounds, tastes, feelings and sights, and we should surround ourselves with these whilst we are alive. But once we are dead, we won’t have any desire to experience these things, just as we didn’t before we were born. So, yes if humans no longer exist it does mean that there will be no one to appreciate these great works anymore but this is not a loss. We had ample opportunity to experience them when we were alive and now that no one exists…no one is deprived.
We need to remember that there is not some nether region where unborn beings are waiting to come into existence, pained every moment they are not witnessing these beautiful creations. There is just non-existence.
Also, think of all the evils we have created as well. Every gas chamber, every bomb, every bullet, every knife, every slave ship; they all existed because of humans too. It’s more important that these things don’t exist than works of art do exist.
#27
There’s something wrong with you. You’re just jealous because you can’t find someone who will have kids with you.
Someone who uses this excuse – it’s more an ad hominem really – is likely struggling to engage with anti-procreative ethics, or at least form a rebuttal to anti-procreative arguments.
The truth is that, antinatalists are just like everyone else, they have a range of competencies and preferences when it comes to dating, relationships and sexual interactions; there are natalist incels (someone who is involuntarily celibate) and there are antinatalists who are complete and utter players (someone who knows how to work the magic). This ad hominem is likely launched – albeit probably subconsciously – to try and shift the focus away from the moral issue at hand and onto an imagined ‘inadequacy’ of the messenger. It’s an attempt to delegitimise and ridicule a person, rather than intellectually engage with and refute their argument. It’s a predictable response and is reminiscent of the Arthur Schopenhauer quote:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Whilst this is an interesting quote that contextualises the proponent’s response, it doesn’t really help you in the moment; so, back to the moment. This ‘excuse’ is a non-point ad hominem attack, it’s not worth taking too seriously. Don’t take it as an insult. To keep the conversation productive it’s probably best to make a bit of a joke at your expense (or at their expense if you’ve got that sort of rapport), have a bit of a laugh, and then move on.
#28
Don’t you think babies are cute though? They’re adorable!
It’s true, humans have evolved to find young children (for the most part) cute as it means we will pay them attention and feel protective of them. However, whilst we find children cute, this does not relegate them to being mere tinker toys that we can bring into existence as accessories to our lives. Just because someone is cute and makes us chuckle and feel warm inside doesn’t mean they should be brought into existence. Cuteness is a superficial distraction that draws attention away from moral issues of substance and even more from serious ethical questions we need to ask ourselves about our personal responsibilities when it comes to not bringing new sentient beings into existence.
One final thing to note is that someone being against procreation does not mean they are anti-child. Many anti-procreative people like children and, of course, wish them the best for their life.
#29
You just hate kids, don’t you?
By no stretch of the imagination does someone being against procreation mean they have some hatred of children. It should also be said that there are some people out there who do hate children, and some of them will be antinatalists. But think of all the people that beat children, traffic them, blow them up…do you really think they are all antinatalists? Or even a majority of them? I don’t think so. Everyone is an individual; some antinatalists may love kids, others may despise them, others may be indifferent. It is not our like or dislike of children that informs our position on the morality of procreation.
Antinatalism, as a philosophy, actually seeks to avoid children being gambled with, not to be thrown into the firing line of harm by their parents. Think of all the risks and all the resulting abuses that children are exposed to in the world. How many parents seriously take into consideration their child’s future wellbeing (not to say if they did then procreation would then be ethical…it wouldn’t) when they are deciding whether to procreate or not? Antinatalists are the ones being risk averse, the ones not willing to gamble with an innocent individual.
Surely, if antinatalists hated kids, we would want to push them into the firing line of life and we’d revel in their suffering? I don’t see that happening. I see the opposite.
#30
It’s pointless discussing this because anti-natalism will just fade away as anti-natalists die.
The implicit assumption (or at least a half assumption) this excuse makes is that ideas or ethical principles are only passed down through genetic lineage; whilst this assumption contains a grain of truth, it is largely false. The grain of truth is that values and principles can be passed down from parent to child (although this is not guaranteed), but this is not the most efficient or the most common mechanism by which values, principles or ethical beliefs are adopted. They are predominantly communicated and adopted through experiences, dialectic and exposure to new information (especially now in the internet age). If we take the example of the animal rights movement: the vast, vast majority of people in this movement came to recognise the legitimacy of animal rights through seeing a documentary, or having a conversation, or having some experience, not because they were born to parents that supported animal rights.
Yes, campaigns for justice – ones like liberal feminism, civil rights, animal rights – both past and present, have the capacity for its members to engage in a slow process of passing values and beliefs down to their biological children. However, people in the anti-procreative movement can, and do, adopt children to look after. In the same way that biological parents can attempt to influence the values of their children, so can the guardians of adopted children.
#31
You don’t need consent from someone to bring them into existence. There is no one to give or withhold consent.
This excuse argues – or at least implicitly sets the precedent – that it is okay to take an action that will explicitly, directly and significantly impact someone else without getting consent from them… even if it is completely unnecessary to do so. Essentially, it claims that the obligation to get consent from a person evaporates when there is no mechanism by which to obtain it.
Let’s explore procreation with regards to consent. If someone does not procreate, there is absolutely no risk of harm to the being that would have been brought into existence. If someone does procreate, the being brought into existence is at risk of great harm (in many cases outside of their control or their creators’) and in most cases can only leave existence (opt-out) at great cost (suicide – the vast majority of people don’t have access to euthanasia services). If we cannot obtain consent from someone to put them into the latter situation (and it is impossible to get consent from the unborn), then we shouldn’t take an action that will result in it being imposed on them (especially since the alternative comes with zero risk of harm). We are each free to put ourselves at risk of great harm, but putting someone else at risk of great harm when it is unnecessary to do so (and perfectly avoidable)… that is not up to us.
When it comes to consent, the fact that someone doesn’t exist is neither here nor there, we know that procreation (as an act) will explicitly, directly and significantly impact them and as such you have an obligation towards them whether they are in front of your eyes or not.
Plus, let’s be real for a minute; the people using this excuse are the exact same people who will spend months preparing for their child to be born because they realise that they have obligations towards that being, despite them not existing.
#32
You’re playing god by not having children.
What does it mean to ‘play god’? Usually this phrase is used to refer to someone exercising their power to control or influence the lives of others, or affairs that do not concern them; there are two things to say here.
Firstly, the excuse implies that it is bad to ‘play god’. Why is it? Sure, there are interventions by one individual or group into the affairs of another that are monstrous and wrong, but there are others that are extremely positive. Let’s think, if we were to come across a group of people who had become lost in the mountains and had begun to starve, would we be ‘playing god’ by giving them food and water? Should we ‘play god’? Or should we let the series of events already in motion play out? By this point I think it is clear that ‘playing god’ in and of itself is not bad, it is how and when we ‘play god’ that is what can be good or bad.
Secondly, let’s assume ‘playing god’ is bad (as the excuse implies). It’s procreation that is ‘playing god’! If someone doesn’t procreate, how can they be ‘playing god’? There is no one to ‘play god’ with – there isn’t some realm of unborn children you’re denying entrance into existence. Procreation, on the other hand, is literally doing the most significant thing you can do to someone – create them. They didn’t ask you to exercise this power over them, it isn’t your life you are creating. This is ‘playing god’, not non-procreation.
#33
You’ll never stop everyone having children.
To be fair to the person putting forward this excuse, it may be true. Reality isn’t neat and tidy, and it doesn’t exist to be convenient to human moral progress. Perhaps a Pandora’s Box has been opened and resulted in a state of affairs – concerning procreation – that cannot be fully addressed. We may never – as an anti-procreative movement – be able to achieve our end goal (whatever it may be – as it may differ from person to person); however, with all of that said, there are two key issues with this excuse:
This is not a reason to do nothing - Just because it may not be possible to fully address an issue doesn’t mean we should just throw up our hands and not even attempt to partially address it. If we apply this same logic to any other situation we realise its absurdity; imagine if someone said “Ah well, there are always going to be starving people… we can’t eradicate it completely” as a reason to do nothing about starvation. This person would be (rightfully) laughed out of the room.
This is not a reason to actively contribute to the problem - If an issue cannot be fully addressed it is not a reason to then actively contribute to increasing the scale or intensity of it. To use the same example as before, imagine if someone said “Ah well, there are always going to be starving people… we can’t eradicate it completely” as a reason to (or an excuse for) intentionally directing food away from starving people. Again, this person would be laughed out of the room.
#34
Not everyone can adopt – it’s expensive!
This excuse contains a false dichotomy. It assumes that the only options available to you are that you either adopt or you procreate, but this isn’t the case; you don’t have to raise a child – you can just not have children. Even if you want children (and for some reason you can’t adopt) this doesn’t give you carte blanche to reproduce. This ‘rationalisation’ is similar to the ‘justification’ some people give for killing and eating other sentient beings: because they don’t want to eat (or can’t eat) replacement products (e.g. plant-based meats, plant milks). Sorry, if you can’t (or refuse to) satisfy your desire via ethical means then they’ll just have to go unsatisfied. Yeah it sucks that some of our desires cannot be fulfilled, but the world isn’t here to make us happy and we have to recognise that we cannot go around doing unethical things to others to satisfy ourselves. Of course we (anti-natalists) should not be callous in how we communicate this, but we do need to be firm.
But okay, let’s deal with the actual excuse at hand: is it more expensive to adopt a child? Whilst there are some costs that seem exclusive to biological parenting such as medical/food costs during pregnancy and the financial burden that can come with birthing, an accurate answer to this question will likely entirely depend on a person’s situation. What adoption system do they have access to? What resources do they already have available to them? What is their life situation? Are they raising the child with a partner? Will they receive compensation from a state for adopting? It is perhaps pointless to even attempt to answer this question in an empirical way when speaking to someone because you probably have no idea how each of these factors manifest in the their life.
It’s probably more productive to keep the conversation theoretical (such as in the first paragraph of this response) and not get lost in an empirical discussion that is only tangential to the core ethical discussion around procreation.
#35
Why can’t you just not have children yourself? You don’t have to be preachy!
This is less an excuse for procreating and likely more a subconscious attempt to evade the responsibility to critically engage with the ethical implications of procreation. The person asking this question has been presented with an argument/piece of information/perspective that challenges a fundamental part of their worldview – that procreation is amoral/moral – and asserts that something they’ve likely planned to do (having children) is immoral.
But anyway, what are the reasons for advocating anti-procreative ethics? Well, the reasons are the same as for any other form of moral progress. Why advocate for the abolition of slavery (both human and non-human)? Why advocate for the end of racial segregation laws? The reason we advocate is because if we don’t moral progress may not happen – or if it does it will likely take a lot longer. Non-procreation isn’t a good thing in and of itself, it is a neutral non-action – it is just not actively contributing to an issue (many in fact). If we want to actually make a difference and contribute to progress we need to (where possible and practicable) actively spread an anti-procreative message.
Having said that, this question does tangentially raise a valid issue. If someone has gotten to the point where they are asking this, the conversation probably isn’t going too well; this raises the issue of effectiveness. We should advocate an anti-procreative message, but we should be considered in how we do it. The vast majority of people already see the anti-procreative message as an extreme one so (as advocates) we don’t want to deliver it in a way that is going to increase the chances of them shutting off to it. How we advocate effectively, however, is a conversation we need to have amongst ourselves as a movement – not something that a booklet like this can simply prescribe.
#36
If humans go extinct, some other civilisation or species will appear somewhere else after we’ve gone.
It’s true, there may be other civilisations or sentient individuals out there; and, as there is a debate to be had around whether humans should prolong their existence in order to help alleviate the plight of wild animals, there could be a similar debate as to whether humans should again prolong our existence to potentially help alleviate extraterrestrial ethical issues. Whilst this is a discussion worth having, it seems there are two significant differences between addressing the suffering of those on this planet and those on others: 1) we know that there are beings suffering here (this is not true of elsewhere), and 2) it will likely take substantially more technological advancement (and therefore generations) to address the suffering of sentient extraterrestrial beings (if they exist).
But anyway, let’s address the logic of this excuse as it is actually intended: a justification for procreation (without the view of altruistically helping others). This line of logic essentially boils down to: because something is happening, or can happen, in some other place or time, I am justified in doing it here/now. Imagine if this line of logic was used for anything else; imagine if I were to say “Why should I stop abusing this child? Someone else will just abuse another child in some other place or time.” Yes, maybe another person will do the same wrong action as you somewhere else or in some other time, but this doesn’t justify you doing it now. Something happening far away does not absolve us of the responsibility of addressing what is happening on our own doorstep.
#37
Life is supposed to have a good and bad side. You can’t appreciate the good things in life without there being bad things!
This excuse seems to claim that the negative things we experience in life are justified to impose on someone (or maybe even not bad at all) because they are necessary to appreciate the positive things we experience in life. However, what it fails to realise is that no one asked for these positive things in the first place. If a non-existent ‘person’ has no interest in experiencing positive things, why is it justified to impose negative experiences onto them in order for them to experience these positive things?
What this excuse recognises – and yet ignores – is that life is a game of Russian roulette, played on one person by another. Yes, there are positive and negative experiences, but who are you to spin the chamber and put the revolver’s barrel against someone else’s head? And, who are you to then try and avoid the responsibility you have in causing them to suffer by claiming you are just ‘enriching their positive experiences’. This is a faulty excuse people use to satisfy their desires by pushing someone else into the firing line of potentially colossal amounts of suffering, then shrugging this reckless and unethical behaviour off by claiming they’re doing the person a favour.
Life is a series of risks and trade-offs involving wellbeing, but they are risks and trade-offs that no one asked to have imposed upon them. When you have a child you are signing them up for something that has inherent suffering in it, but you sign them up anyway.
#38
You can’t say that life is bad. It’s up to each person to decide if their life is worth living.
This excuse misses the distinction between life and procreation. The excuse essentially claims that you cannot be sure that life is bad (or not worth living) because it is up to the individual to decide whether their life is worth living or not. Well, it’s true that once someone is alive it is up to them whether they think their life is worth living, however, that is an entirely separate question as to whether we should procreate (and thus start lives that could not be worth living).
What is in question is the ethics of creating new sentient life (of course there is more nuance, but it isn’t necessary here). It doesn’t really matter that some, or maybe even most, people will subjectively assess that their own life was worth living; let’s be charitable and assume that 99% of people assess their life to be worth living. Given that no one needs to exist, and that any of the individuals we bring into existence could be part of that 1% that – through their subjective assessment – judges their life to have not been worth living (in fact it has been torment), who are we to support or partake in the constant creation of new sentient life when we know there is the collateral damage of those people. Again, it doesn’t matter that those people are only 1% of all people, none of the other 99% needed to be (or wanted to be) created… so how are they a justification for the existence of the 1%?
#39
If we stop procreating, the sacrifice our ancestors made to get us to this point will have meant nothing.
This excuse is an interesting one; essentially it says that we owe it to our ancestors to continue the existence of the human species because they went through hardship to continue it. First of all, our ancestors aren’t here anymore – they’re dead. Just like they have no idea that automobiles or the internet exist, they will have literally no idea what is going to happen to the human species whether it continues or not.
Second of all, this excuse implies that what our ancestors did was some form of grand achievement. Of course many people in the past have achieved great things and have bettered the lives of others and they should be recognised and remembered for that… but continuing the human species is not really an achievement. Billions of humans (and trillions of other animals) have been tortured and killed up to this point, just so we can stand atop the pile of bodies and say ‘Behold, I have an iPhone’. We are at an arbitrary position in human history, all we do by procreating is create new needs where there didn’t need to be any. Sure, someone born now will probably suffer less than someone born 200 years ago (although this depends on many things) and perhaps their needs will be more fulfilled, but these needs never had to exist in the first place – it’s pointless (and dangerous given all the risks involved).
Third of all (and finally) humans are already putting an extinction pressure on their own species through our impact on Earth’s systems (e.g. anthropogenic climate change). If the person who put this excuse forward really did care about prolonging the human species (because their ancestors sacrificed so much), surely they would not procreate anyway to reduce their contribution to our impact on Earth’s systems?
#40
Not having children is just a trend. It will end like all other trends and people will come back to being normal again.
This excuse is odd, in that it isn’t really an excuse for procreating, but more a means of belittling procreation as an ethical issue. To trivialise the anti-procreative movement as a trend – akin to the latest video game – is a baseless and flippant ad-hominem that could have been (and was) launched at any other serious ethical movement (e.g. liberal feminism, animal rights).
It’s likely that the person putting forward this excuse will not provide any evidence for their claim, and as the late Christopher Hitchens said:
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
But, let’s take a look at the claim anyway! Anti-procreative thought is not new, it has been around for over one thousand years. Abū al-ʿAlāʾ al-Maʿarrī, as just one example, was an anti-procreative philosopher that lived between the years of 973 - 1057. Perhaps one of his most famous quotes is:
“This is my father's crime against me, which I myself committed against none.”
Given that anti-procreative thought has been around for such a long time, and its subscribers are growing even more in recent years, this doesn’t seem to suggest it is a trend; it suggests it is here to stay.
#41
But I want to have my children with me in heaven!
Whilst this excuse is clearly rooted in a disregard for others in the pursuit of one’s own desires, we should try to come from a place of empathy with people. It is understandable that someone, if they believe a heaven exists (in whatever form that may be), would want to be surrounded by people they love. What they miss is that the method (i.e. procreation) they propose to use to achieve this will potentially leave behind colossal amounts of collateral damage.
What collateral damage? Think of all the horrors that could (and do) befall someone when they are brought into existence, let alone the potential eternity they could spend in hell (presumably also part of this person’s worldview) if they step one foot out of line. Just think about that, to satisfy your desire you are willing to set someone else up so that they could potentially go to hell – the most horrific place to exist – when in non-existence they had no chance of ending up there. You have lined up a series of hoops that they must jump through – the details of which will vary depending on the religious belief of the person – in order to (at worst) avoid intense suffering, or (at best) serve to fulfil your selfish desire. Yes, we all have desires, but we have to understand that we cannot just disregard others in our pursuit of them. Sometimes desires have to go unsatisfied.
On top of all of this, we must remember that if someone is so married to the idea of guiding someone along this ‘pathway to heaven’, they can always adopt. In this person’s eyes, this adopted child is already at risk of hell, so you might as well guide this child along the ‘pathway to heaven’ rather than force a new child onto the pathway for your selfish desire. Why create new potential victims of hell (and suffering on Earth) when there are already potential victims that you can save (in their eyes anyway)?
#42
If we don’t procreate then those other people will take over and dominate. We can’t let that happen!
This excuse is a tricky one because it doesn’t really have its foundations in natalism but more in this person’s suspicion or dislike of another group – procreation is more a means to the end of group domination. These groups could be based on religion, nationality, level of education, financial status or a whole host of other things, and it may be the case that to address this excuse you need to address the underlying suspicion. Despite this, there are a few things that can be stated (for most cases):
Procreation isn’t necessary - Most groups are voluntary (e.g. based on ways of thinking, behaviours, hobbies etc.) and so we have control over whether we are a member. For these groups, creating biological children is not the only way, nor the most effective, to gain new members. In fact, it seems that trying to influence people that already exist (rather than creating a new person and trying to influence them) would be more effective.
Procreation is no guarantee - Procreating does not guarantee that your biological child will follow in your footsteps when it comes to being a member of most voluntary groups.
Adoption is a better option - Whilst children (or anyone) should not be viewed as pawns or tools in political games, even if we entertain this mindset, it still doesn’t make sense to procreate. Adoption comes with the same uncertainty (in terms of influencing the child) as procreation, however, you have the added ‘bonus’ of taking that child away from the influence of the other group (as you will have more control over their environment).
There are, of course, some groups (e.g. racial ones) that you cannot just influence someone into or out of – it would take procreation to gain new members – and so, really, you would have to address the suspicion itself.
#43
How do you know that non-existence is better?
This excuse asserts that because we only have tangible knowledge about one state (existence), and not of the other (non-existence), it is reasonable to bring new beings into existence as there’s a chance that we may be saving them from something far worse (non-existence). Of course, this assertion can simply be inverted (regardless of the knowledge claim): it is reasonable to leave beings in non-existence as there’s a chance that we may be saving them from something far worse (existence). Back to the excuse itself though, it seems to claim one of two things, and we can deal with both:
Non-existence is bad in-and-of itself - This form of the excuse seems to come from a confusion over what non-existence is. Non-existence is simply the absence of anything, and for non-existence to be bad in-and-of itself it would have to be not wanted when experienced. However, for it to be experienced there must be someone doing the experiencing… but then this would no longer be non-existence.
Existence is comparatively better than non-existence - Lets compare existence and non-existence. If you boil it right down, existence has two key constituent parts: things you prefer (i.e. good things) and things you do not prefer (i.e. bad things). Non-existence doesn’t have the bad things; this is good. It also doesn’t have the good things, but this isn’t a bad thing because you do not exist to want/miss them. Non-existence imposes no needs or wants, you’ll never be unhealthy or be unsatisfied; in fact, all bad things are sourced in existence – non-existence removes all of that.
As Thomas Ligotti said:
“Non-existence does not harm anyone. Existence harms everyone.”
It should be noted that the non-existence here is of those who were never born. For those already created it's a different situation.
#44
Anti-natalism is anti-woman and anti-feminist. How dare you tell a woman what to do with her body.
This excuse is essentially the ‘it’s my personal choice’ excuse, but with a female twist. It claims that anti-natalism is telling women what to do with their bodies, and that what a woman does with her body is a personal choice.
To deal with the first component, anti-natalism is not trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, it is simply trying to get them (or anyone) to consider the ethical implications of their actions (specifically procreation). As for the second component: yes, what someone (whatever sex they are) does with their body is their personal choice, but when we procreate we involve someone else’s body and that is where the ethical issue comes in. You’re free to do whatever you like with your own body, but using your body to create someone else and gamble with their life is not a personal choice – it’s choosing for someone else and an action that warrants ethical scrutiny.
Another point to make is that non-procreation may disproportionately benefit women. Basically all of the labour falls on women when they are pregnant, and then after the birth (for right or wrong) the majority of child care falls on women too. With no child, the time and energy that would have been used to raise them can be used by the woman to do whatever she likes – having a child detracts from her autonomy and the choices she can make.
Finally, it is worth noting that there is only one real solution to the issues that women face: non-existence. Not bringing people into existence is cutting off the supply of victims to the pains, discrimination and control that many face in existence. Anti-natalism seems to bolster feminism by preventing new victims from existing in a world that suffers from the issues it seeks to address.
#45
Anti-natalism is a religion and a cult!
This is less an excuse for procreating and more an attempt to discredit anti-natalism itself by making it appear so extreme or ridiculous that anyone confronted by it would feel content in not engaging with what its proponents have to say (i.e. not having to confront something that challenges their world view).
One thing that may lead someone to do this is simply that the idea that procreation is unethical is just so far outside of their Overton Window, but it could also be because they have previously crossed paths with anti-natalists who didn’t leave the best impression. So, what could have happened is that the label of ‘religion’ or ‘cult’ got slapped onto anti-natalists and in the person’s mind the label bled into their perception of the philosophy itself.
Another reason is because people feel like anti-natalists want to control their behaviour – like how many religions often control their followers’ behaviour. Of course this is not the case, well, no more than any other ethical principle. All anti-natalism seeks to do for the individual person is make them engage with the ethical implications of what they are doing – procreating (or supporting it). This is exactly the same as any other ethical question: Is it wrong to kill someone if they annoy you? Is it okay to kill someone for taste pleasure? Is it okay to have sex with someone even if they say no? Asking any of these questions could be seen as a way to control someone else, but, in fact, it is simply questioning the ethics of someone’s behaviour.
The main route I would take when addressing this excuse is to ask questions: What aspect of it is cult-like? Are you confusing the behaviour of a few anti-natalists for the actual philosophy itself? But, to be honest, it’s probably best to just get the conversation back on track to the actual arguments at hand because this isn’t really an excuse for procreation – it’s just a load of nothing.
#46
If I don’t have children how will I live on after I die? I need to pass on my genes so that my legacy can continue.
The first thing to note about this excuse is that it is extremely selfish – which I don’t think is something any of us aspire to be. A second thing to note is that creating a new person as a means to the end of being remembered is probably not the most effective means of achieving that end.
Why is it selfish? Wanting to have a legacy in-and-of-itself is not selfish (maybe slightly egotistical), but creating someone as a means of building one is. When you create someone as a vessel for your legacy you also make your legacy (at least partially) dependent on them and, if putting someone in harm’s way for your own ends weren’t bad enough, this puts undue pressure on them to live their life in a way that conforms to your expectations. You’ve created someone who didn’t ask to be the centre of your legacy, and yet they will either 1) endure the emotional burden of living up to your expectations in spite of their own desires, or 2) live their life as they wish – which, given the differences between people, is unlikely to be fully in accordance with what you deem acceptable for ‘your legacy’.
Note: Whilst it is not advisable to see people as means to your own ends – and adoption should centre the needs of the one being adopted, not the one adopting – if someone is set on their legacy living on through another then there is no need to create someone. Adoption is an option.
Why is it not effective? The vast majority of people have children, and yet the vast majority of people have been forgotten in time. How is creating another person going to make you any more memorable (or less forgettable) than anyone else? Even if your child achieves great things, do we remember the parents of famous people? No, not really – not unless they are known for something themselves. What most people who are remembered are remembered for is either improving the conditions of others, achieving something extraordinary, or committing horrible atrocities. If a legacy is what you want, it is probably better to build it yourself through helping others, not by creating yet another time-forgotten nobody.
#47
Your thinking is too black and white; you’re so absolutist, you can’t say procreation is bad no matter what.
As with any ethical question, there is nuance in the ethics of procreation. If someone tries to discredit an opposition to procreation – as the above does – by painting it as some rigid ideology that is blind to the nuances of reality, then they either haven’t paid attention to the wide variety in thought on the subject, or the only anti-natalist they’ve met was an ideologue. The thing is though, not all anti-natalists are ideologues.
Even a brief glance at the subject of anti-procreative ethics will give the viewer an appreciation for the wealth of disagreement over its details. How can the general opposition to procreation in-and-of-itself be ‘black and white’ if there isn’t even agreement over what the black or the white actually is? Would most anti-procreative people create one new person to end the suffering of all others… probably; or, if life only contained blissful pleasures and no suffering at all, would it be okay to create someone then? Some, if not many, anti-natalists would say yes. We don’t live in those worlds though, we live in a world where suffering is here to stay and all we do when creating new people is throw yet another person into its grip – just because we (as creators) feel like it.
Moreover, there are countless issues that many people will take fairly absolutist stances on: child abduction, sexual assault, torture, to name a few. These people are not seen as being ‘black and white’, but when it comes to opposing procreation, anti-natalists are being ‘black and white’. It comes across as a cheap (albeit probably subconscious) way of dismissing something that actually deserves more attention.
#48
Life isn’t an imposition, it’s an opportunity.
There are two things to address with this excuse as it claims two things: 1) life isn’t an imposition, and 2) life is an opportunity.
Let’s begin with whether life is an imposition or not. What is life? Life is a series of needs that we, as a vessel for needs, must meet – lest we suffer the consequences of not meeting them. These needs (like food, water, shelter, warmth etc.) each need active upkeep, they cannot go unattended or we will starve or die of thirst or of exposure to the elements. We are vessels continually searching and (if we are fortunate enough to) securing means to the end of satisfying the needs we have as an inherent character of our biology. But this isn’t the only thing, none of these needs can ever be sufficiently met, we will always become hungry again, we will always become thirsty again, we will always be in need of the next form of entertainment. It never ends until death relieves it, and death (albeit an end to our needs) is a scary prospect in itself. This situation, this conundrum, is something we decide to put someone else in. Life – a series of needs that we cannot escape and are insufficiently equipped to effectively satisfy – does indeed seem to be an imposition.
Now let’s look at life being an opportunity. An opportunity for what? Presumably, most people would say “To experience the wonders of life!” – essentially, good things (things that are wanted when experienced). It doesn’t seem to make sense to call creating someone so that they then experience pleasures an “opportunity” because the only reason they would want those pleasures anyway is because of their capacity (and thus desire) to experience them – which only exists because of their creation. Does it make sense to call giving x to someone an opportunity when you are the one that made them need or want x in the first place? It doesn’t seem to.
#49
Suffering isn’t always bad, many people grow from having experienced bad things.
It can’t be denied that the experience of suffering can result in personal growth, however, the resulting growth does not justify the suffering itself or make that suffering a good thing.
For example, a person who has been abused may go on to use that horrible experience as a tool for empowerment and establish a charity that goes on to support many other victims of abuse. The person in question may also gain a great sense of fulfilment from having set up this charity and supporting the other victims of abuse. Would this make the initial abuse justified or a good thing? Of course not. The abuse would still have been wrong and a horrible experience, it’s just extremely fortunate that from that experience the victim was able to salvage a decent future and help others.
Still convinced that the suffering would have been justified (or even a good thing) in that case or others? Well, remember that the person you could create is not you and would not likely have the same boundaries, capacities or tolerances. Who is one person to put another in a situation where they are guaranteed to experience significant suffering (i.e. in existence)? All to satisfy their own desires; and then, try to ‘justify’ this by claiming that the suffering they will have to endure isn’t actually bad because “they will grow from it”. Suffering is suffering, regardless of what comes after.
#50
We can’t live our lives in a safety bubble in fear of what might happen to our children. Life is about taking risks!
This excuse implies that anti-natalism imposes unreasonable restraints on an individual's behaviour – in order to reduce the risk of harm – and that anti-natalists want people to live their lives cowering behind their furniture in fear of all the bad things in the world; both of these inferences are confused. Anti-natalism is not about reducing the risk of harm to those who already exist (i.e. those who would be doing the cowering), it’s about not creating new beings and avoiding their exposure to the risk of harm in the first place.
Once we exist we must accept the fact that bad things will happen; it is up to us as individuals and collectives to navigate reality, balance our interests with those of others, and mitigate risk as best we can. Creating someone else, however, is creating a whole new being who didn’t need to be exposed to any risk in the first place, but now is forced to navigate the same landscape of potential and guaranteed suffering as the rest of us. Live your life as best you can (which, it must be said, is probably best done outside of a safety bubble), take the risks you wish to, be as fulfilled as you can be, but do not juggle with the wellbeing of others. Non-existence has no desire for the pleasures that can be experienced once a subject exists, so why create a subject to take those risks in pursuing them (especially when the capacity for pleasure is tied to the capacity for suffering [hence the risk])?
People may think that holding an anti-natalist position is ‘living in a safety bubble’ because it’s seen to impose unreasonable restrictions on an individual’s behaviour (i.e. not procreating) to avoid inflicting suffering on others. Perhaps this perception exists because people feel they have a right to create someone else – because it’s so intensely normalised – so they see anti-natalism as taking something away from them. What is more unreasonable however is the recklessness with which many (perhaps even the majority of) people procreate; as Peter Wessel Zapffe said:
“A coin is examined, and only after careful deliberation, given to a beggar, whereas a child is flung out into the cosmic brutality without hesitation.”
#51
Once we can provide net positive lives, surely it is good to create people to increase the overall well-being in the universe?
This excuse recognises that the current possible (or actual) range of life circumstances does not actually meet the criteria for its proponent to consider procreation “good”; however, they may advance it under the assumption that humans will continue to procreate, despite any ethical concerns, to a point where that range has reached a point where procreation would be considered “good” – to the proponent. Bearing this in mind, let’s continue.
This excuse doesn’t seem to recognise that well-being (however defined) is a good because it is wanted by a sentient being when they experience it. Two key prerequisites for well-being being a good are: 1) an existent being, and 2) that being having the capacity to subjectively experience. There is no central cosmological terminal where well-being is aggregated, processed or calculated, it’s subjectively experienced by each individual sentient being. So, who is this increase in overall well-being good for? Of course, an increase in anyone’s well-being is good for them, but non-existence (which is what there is before a being is created) does not meet either of the prerequisites. For someone to benefit from an increase in well-being they must already be in existence, so it seems a rather nonsensical goal to create people anew in order for them to experience something they only require/desire once created. It would be like creating someone so they can enjoy a happy retirement – before they existed they had no desire for a retirement, let alone an enjoyable one. This effort – to create new sentient beings so they will experience well-being – seems especially misguided when that effort can go to improving the lives of beings who already exist (and actually want that increase in their quality of life).
Something worth noting is that if someone genuinely believed that creating new people to experience well-being was a moral good, they would recognise that investing extensive time, money and resources into raising one or a few biological children of their own is an inefficient means by which to achieve this and comes with great opportunity costs. Instead, they would surely work to influence others into procreating, thus outsourcing this resource intensive work to people who are willing to procreate. They could do this through volunteering for and donating to effective pro-natalist charities, lobbying for pro-natalist policies in government, or even establishing their own pro-natalist educational outreach organisation. Given that most people who advance this excuse will not be doing these things – or even consider them – however, hints at the fact that it’s really an ‘altruistic’ cover for fulfilling their own selfish desire to create a new person.
#52
We need to procreate to ensure wild animal suffering doesn’t spread.
This excuse likely comes from a place of genuine care for the suffering of others. There are, however, a few issues that should be noted.
Firstly, it presents a false dichotomy; that either 1) humans continue to reproduce (or even reproduce more), or 2) wild animal suffering increases in its scope (and perhaps intensity too); but, these aren’t the only two possibilities. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept – as it is not obvious that this is always the case – that areas occupied by human activities contain and generate less (nonhuman and human) suffering, it’s not clear that this activity must rely significantly on procreation. With Homo sapiens’ ever increasing technological capacity and store of knowledge, displacing wild animal suffering without using flesh and blood humans as a means to this end does not require much imagination to picture.
Note: There is an ongoing discussion within anti-natalist (and other) circles as to whether the human species will have to persist in significantly reduced numbers to ensure the ongoing mitigation of wild animal (or other forms of) suffering. This eventuality would rely on some level of reproduction but nowhere near the level present today and is not relevant as an argument for procreation until such a time is reached.
Secondly, even if we acknowledge procreation as a tool for reducing wild animal suffering, it’s an extremely crass and blunt one. Take the suffering generated to maintain a human life, add the unnecessary suffering intentionally imposed on others by that human and then consider the suffering experienced by that individual themselves; does this not seem like an awfully roundabout route to take to reduce suffering? Surely using non-sentient organisms, tools and objects to mitigate the suffering of sentient beings would make more sense? (Even if we cannot effectively achieve this at present, isn’t it worth focussing on developing those capacities, rather than thinking up excuses for procreation?) And finally on this point, the use of sentient beings as a means to an end in general should be viewed as highly suspect and should not generally be encouraged.
Lastly, as mentioned earlier, this excuse is not universally applicable. It does not apply, for example, in areas where there is no – or very little – wild animal suffering. Establishing a settlement in areas inhospitable to much of or any sentient life (such as deserts, the antarctic or outer space) would run counter to the objectives that the proponents of this excuse hope to achieve: reducing suffering, as the new settlement would establish suffering where there was none, or more suffering where there was little.
#53
You can’t judge procreation, it is just another way that energy flows through the universe from non-life to life and back again.
This excuse is very peculiar, but it is one that can sometimes be advanced. The reason it is so peculiar is because it views procreation through an extremely specific lens – the lens of energy transfer – that seems to bear no relevance to any meaningful discussions on the issue. When it comes to anti-natalism the discussion surrounding the creation of new people is an ethical one. If someone wants to break procreation down into the biology, chemistry and physics that comprise its component parts then they are at liberty to do so, but this is not relevant to the discussions anti-natalists are trying to raise.
Another thing to point out is that if we define energy transfers as not being open for moral judgment then doesn’t this prevent us from morally judging any action? Every action (whether it be one we’d deem ethical or not) involves a transfer of energy because every action requires work to be done, and work requires energy. Does the proponent of this excuse really want to forfeit their right to criticise the rapists, the abusers and the murders of the world? Do they want, even, to forfeit their right to morally judge someone when they assault them? Wouldn't any action that they may fall victim to be ‘just another way that energy flows’?
#54
You don’t know if creating sentient life does more harm than good so you should be agnostic about whether it is good or bad to create it.
People advancing this excuse usually are not speaking philanthropically. Usually, they are uncertain as to whether the positive considerations of procreation – both philanthropic (as some would see it) and misanthropic (i.e. benefits to relatives and friends, contribution to society’s functioning, displacement of wild animal suffering) – are outweighed by the negative considerations – both philanthropic (i.e. the person will suffer and die) and misanthropic (i.e. suffering caused to others). They conclude that, all things considered in the utilitarian calculus, they don’t know whether creating someone will be an overall good or harm and so remain agnostic – not judging people either way (i.e. whether they procreate or not).
This form of ethical agnosticism – deferring ethical judgment until all final details of how an action will impact all concerned parties are known – may not seem unreasonable on its face, but it can cripple practical ethics. Let’s apply it to another issue that many of its proponents seem to care about (and rightly so): the killing of non-human sentient beings. Cows, for example, raised on pasture land require a large amount of land. This land would otherwise be inhabited by wild animals suffering. Would the slitting of the throats of these cows now become something we should remain morally agnostic about? Should we step back and let anyone who wishes to stab this sentient being without moral judgment? What if the cows had long, pleasant lives, and their deaths were quick? On top of that, what if the money raised from selling their carcass goes to support the next generation of calves? Think of all that wild animal suffering being displaced.
Clearly we can recognise that certain actions are unethical if we proclaim to care about suffering. Instead of allowing this level of moral agnosticism to have a chilling effect on ethics we can try our utmost not to commit the actions we deem to be wrong in-and-of themselves, including when working to alleviate the suffering of others. Just as it’s obvious that we don’t need to be slitting cows’ throats to mitigate wild suffering, it should be obvious that we don’t need to be creating new sentient beings to alleviate the suffering that existing ones face – we can prioritise other means.
This ethical agnosticism, in all likelihood, probably arises from the fact that the person employing it doesn’t actually view procreation as an action that directly, explicitly and significantly harms another person and results in their death. This should be addressed.
#55
It’s not just about the child! Having children benefits other people and improves society.
There is no denying that creating a new person can have benefits for people and society. The people who created the person in question can often draw an enormous sense of meaning and fulfilment from having created a new person; they can also benefit from the person’s support – physically, financially and otherwise – in their old age. Those who did not create the person in question can also benefit from their creation through a sense of meaning in the relationships they may have with them, but also more indirectly through benefitting from supply chains, institutions and other structures (e.g. a language school, the medical system) that the person who was created may go on to contribute to.
The pertinent question, however, is whether these benefits justify creating someone (who will suffer and die)? Are we okay with using another sentient being as a means to our own ends (especially when they have no choice in the matter)? And, if we currently do use sentient beings as means then should we not be trying to move away from this rather than maintain it? Are we okay with intentionally imposing that significant suffering and death on someone else (especially an innocent and vulnerable person) to achieve our personal desires?
The truth is that we live in a world where people don’t always have to contend with the ethical consequences of their actions. Often they are let off the hook by the ignorance and apathy of wider society which, unfortunately, for the most part, are structured in a way where most people aren’t even aware that the above questions exist.
#56
Being against procreation means you have to accept killing people who are asleep or in comas.
This excuse (well, it’s actually more of a critique of anti-natalism) is not claiming that anti-natalists actively want to end the lives of people in comas, but that being against creating sentient life logically commits you to supporting the ending of sentient lives where the being’s consciousness is temporarily inhibited (e.g. when someone is asleep or in a coma). This is mistaken. Whilst some people who happen to be anti-natalist may have particular views on death, there is not one specific view that is logically implicated by anti-natalism. Before you respond it would be worth asking the person to lay out why they believe anti-natalism entails this view of death. However, once you decide to respond, the following can be useful to know.
To address this claim we need to go back to the basics of what underpins anti-natalism. There are two key things, it could be argued, that underpin an opposition to creating sentient life: 1) not directly, significantly and explicitly imposing suffering on others when it is avoidable, and 2) not taking unnecessary decisions that risk direct, explicit and significant harm to others without their consent. Ending a sentient life, even if in a dispositional state, violates both of these. Being dead does not incur the potential for suffering, but the process of dying does. Killing someone is imposing the process of dying onto them (I know… crazy, right?). Regardless of how you define harm, and whether you see death itself as a harm, ending someone’s life will bring about the potential for harm, and it is a situation we are deciding to put them in. There is so much uncertainty about the level of consciousness, perception and awareness the people in these states have, and it is still debated as to whether they have desires that can be thwarted. None of this is comparable with non-existence; before people are created they aren’t in some anticipatory form of existence, there is just non-existence.
It should also be noted that people, even in dispositionally conscious states, have moral responsibilities to others. Someone in a coma or asleep may have children, killing this person will ensure that these responsibilities are not fulfilled. They may also have ongoing work that will benefit and alleviate the suffering of others; these will likely not be finished, unless someone else takes it upon themselves to do so.
#57
People are tougher than you think, they can withstand the suffering to enjoy the benefits of life.
Yes, humans can be tough. Many people will reach the end of their lives, having experienced many hardships in life, and conclude that their life ‘wasn’t too bad’. The issue is that none of us got to make the decision to expose ourselves to these hardships. Should we really be putting people through hardships they did not ask to be put through (especially when we only do so to fulfil our own preference)? Someone may think people are tough, but that doesn’t mean the person they create will be. Let’s suppose they are tough though, just because someone can deal with and bounce back from a hardship, does that justify putting them through (or at risk of suffering from) that hardship in the first place?
What this excuse really boils down to is one person putting another person – who they do not know and have no experience with (as they do not exist, but will if the person procreates) – in a situation where they will come to great harm and then die, and they’re justifying it with “I think they can handle it.” All for this person to enjoy the ‘benefits’ of life – things that before they existed they had no capacity or desire for, as there was no one to have them.
#58
Why should I have to make a sacrifice and give up so much in my life to prevent the suffering of someone else?
In its self-centeredness this excuse confuses the prevention of suffering with the creation of it. Non-procreation isn’t preventing suffering, it’s not creating it. The confusion is founded in the assumption that creating new people is a non-action. Whilst many of us in our upbringings have been taught to think this, it is actually the reverse that is true. Not creating another person is a non-action, creating someone is a positive (not in the moral sense of ‘positive’) action. From this new framing we can now understand that not creating a new person is not preventing suffering, it is simply not creating suffering (as the suffering would not exist unless we were to take the physical action). (To prevent suffering we would have to make an effort to intervene and stop suffering from occurring that would have occurred were we not to have acted.) By analogy, if I were a person that didn’t bully other people in my workplace for my own amusement, it would be odd for me to claim that I am “preventing suffering” by not bullying anyone; the correct framing – as it is with not creating new people – is that my not bullying other people is just not creating suffering.
Another part of this excuse that needs addressing is the idea of non-procreation being a sacrifice. Whilst we can be empathetic with people and understand that something (i.e. biological offspring) they have centered their life around is perhaps slipping away, we do need to be firm. Non-procreation should not be viewed as a sacrifice, just as any other set of ethical (non-)actions should not be viewed as a sacrifice. For example, it should not be viewed through the terms of ‘sacrifice’ to not act on sexual desires when the other person does not consent to those actions. Unfortunately for that person, they are not having their desire fulfilled, but the fact is that their desire (in this case) could only be fulfilled via unethical means – so it will just have to go unfulfilled; but, there is good news! If someone is so attached to the idea of raising offspring, there is always the ‘next best’ (from the perspective of someone who wants to create a new person) option: adoption. There are millions of children (also consider nonhuman animals) worldwide that have been created and yet have been left without stable guardians.
#59
You’re just a weak person who cannot handle life and you’re trying to stop us stronger people from thriving.
This excuse is not an excuse, it’s just an insult and should really be ignored. However, in the spirit of rebutting peoples’ responses to anti-natalism…
Presumably the meaning of ‘weak’ in this context is not in regard to physical strength but more to the emotional or psychological strength someone can have to withstand the array of challenges life contains. By this, or any standard really, anti-natalists are not weak as a category. There are some anti-natalists that will be weak, but others will be very strong – just as natalists will exist on a spectrum of resilience. (In fact, the proponent of this excuse may produce offspring that are ‘weak’ in their eyes – did they think about that before procreating?) If we look at the substance of what anti-natalists are saying, they are often shedding light on the harsh, unjust and gruesome things that can happen to people. Often thinking and talking about these issues can be tough and takes a kind of resilience to be able to do. Add on top of this the constant reminder of suffering that anti-natalists face whenever a friend joyfully says “I am pregnant.” In this way, anti-natalists are tough, but of course, this all exists on a spectrum as it does with anyone – anti-natalist or not.
Another thing to note is that many anti-natalists actually wanted to create children before having their mind changed, even based their life around it. Being able to receive new information that conflicts with your worldview, acknowledge you were wrong and change your future behaviour to run counter to such strongly held current desires can be very tough.
#60
Why don’t you focus on stopping poor people from procreating? They have loads of children, us richer people have less children!
The proponent of this excuse may hope for it to come across as a ‘pragmatic policy’ suggestion, but it’s probably safe to assume that it is in fact an attempt to shift attention away from their individual actions and responsibilities and towards those of people far away.
Note: It is worth issuing an initial throat-clearing that anti-natalism is an opposition to the creation of sentient life, not sentient life that physically manifests as a certain subset of one species (Homo sapiens) – whether that be a religious, economic or racial one (etcetera).
On the topic at hand, it’s possible that the person advancing this excuse is doing so under outdated stereotypes that are ignorant of the current empirical facts of demography (the study of human populations – including their fertility rates). When someone refers to ‘the poor’, their schema for this in terms of population is perhaps middle-income countries with large populations such as India, Bangladesh and China, but the average fertility rate of these countries is 2.18, 1.99 and 1.7, respectively [1]; in fact, China’s average fertility rate is lower than that of the UK and the USA [1]. So, before we point a finger we may be smart to first check the empirical facts of the populations we point at.
Although the popular understanding of our contemporary demographic landscape may be outdated, this does not disregard the fact that there are still countries, or regions of the world, where average fertility rates are still significantly higher than the global average; these countries tend to be low-income countries on the African continent [1]. We should not hide away from this fact, but we should affirm that demonisation of these populations is not ethical or appropriate. The causes of these higher average fertility rates can be of a wide variety – from infant mortality to a lack of access to effective contraception – and by recognising them we can collectively support policies or campaigns that address them, and thus help lower the birth rates in these areas.
Whilst demography is an interesting topic of discussion it is mostly a distraction from the ethical responsibilities of the person being engaged with. If this person wishes to (indirectly) use the hardship of others as a scapegoat for procreating themselves then they’ll need to reconsider and put a different excuse on the table.