The Anti-Natalist Dilemma: Navigating Overpopulation, Ethical Choices, and Sustainable Futures
Written By Melody Minerva
December 7th 2023
Recent studies have shown that the overturning of Roe V. Wade led to 32,000 new births. Whether you think that is something to celebrate depends on your ideology. Those who have worries about overpopulation might find this to be disheartening. As of November 2022, the global population has reached 8 billion, steadily increasing. The increasing population’s effects on climate change are a big problem, and CO2 emissions are expected to reach an all-time high in 2023. Overpopulation has many issues such as resource depletion, urbanization, and infrastructure strain, waste generation, etc. Those who label themselves as anti-natalists would list a major problem with overpopulation, or procreation in general, as an increase in suffering in the world.
Via Andy Bridge Unsplash
“It is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place.”
Anti-natalism is the philosophy that giving birth is a morally wrong act. Anti-natalists believe that To bring life into the world is to bring suffering to those whom you bring into it. David Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument suggests that procreating creates an asymmetrical balance between pleasure and pain. The absence of suffering is inherently positive, irrespective of whether anyone directly experiences that positivity, whereas the absence of joy is not inherently negative unless someone is deprived of it. Given that every individual who comes into existence is destined to encounter significant adversity, it is more prudent not to bring them into being, as their non-existence would spare them from harm.
Another argument is that one cannot consent to being born. Those who are generally happy with their life might find this to be a silly notion. Some who are depressed in life might find comfort in the fact that they are not the only ones who wish they had never been born. Mumbai Businessman Raphael Samuel and self-proclaimed anti-natalist intended to sue his parents with this precedent. He has a good relationship with his parents and the suit was a publicity stunt to gain attention and promote his beliefs. While he does mention that it is unfair that being brought into the world brings lifelong suffering, he also advocates for other reasons as well, such as preventing environmental degradation and poverty.
The misanthropic argument, the opposite end of the idea of humans being the ones feeling suffering, is that it is inevitable for them to inflict harm and suffering whether it be on other humans, the environment, or animals. It’s also been shown in a study, that those who consider themselves anti-natalist are likely to score highly in areas of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism on the Dark Triad.
One might consider the fact that those who hold these views are simply projecting their perspectives on how life is to them onto the rest of humanity. Those who have an optimistic outlook on life would likely see zero rationality. However, those who have nihilistic or pessimistic views on life might at least see some reasoning in believing this way.
A Group that holds the Anti-Natalist belief is the Voluntary Extinction Movement. Voluntary extinction, in simple terms, is the idea that humans should choose not to have children and let the human population gradually decrease over time. This choice is often driven by concerns about overpopulation, environmental sustainability, and the well-being of future generations. Those who support voluntary extinction believe that by reducing the number of people on Earth, we can lessen our impact on the environment and create a more sustainable future.
There is also a popular subreddit called r/Childfree for people who choose a life without kids. Many of those who belong to that community consider themselves to be anti-natalists. Topics on posts often include discussions about relationships, societal expectations, personal freedoms, and the challenges and benefits of a life without children.
The Shakers are a group that shares similar beliefs about not having children. They were a religious sect that emerged in the 18th century in England and later expanded in the United States. The core tenet of Shakerism was celibacy, and they practiced communal living. They believed in complete celibacy and abstained from marriage and sexual relations, seeing it as a way to live a life of devotion to God. Due to their commitment to celibacy, Shakers did not have biological children. Instead, they sought to grow their communities through conversion and adoption. Their communities eventually declined with only two existing members today.
There are other ways we can address the problems that overpopulation imposes, and it is something that needs to be addressed. In a compelling piece by Jody Berger featured in Stanford Medicine, attention is drawn to a thought-provoking lecture delivered by Stanford epidemiologist Stephen Luby. The lecture, intriguingly titled "Can our collective efforts avert imminent human extinction?" delves into the prospects humanity faces in the not-so-distant future. Luby envisions three plausible outcomes by 2100, a mere 77 years from now: the stark reality of human extinction, the potential collapse of civilization with only limited survival prospects, or the optimistic scenario of a thriving human society.
Luby's foresight implies that the trajectory of our collective destiny hinges on critical factors, with population growth and the escalating degradation of our planet standing out as key determinants. In examining the intricate interplay between these elements, the article suggests that the stakes are high, prompting a profound reflection on the urgent need for concerted global efforts to chart a course toward a sustainable and flourishing future.
Anti-natalism occupies an extreme part of the ideological spectrum, as opposed to the pro-life stance. What warrants universal agreement is that whether or not you choose to have children for whatever reason, you have the right to choose. While overpopulation is a problem, it can be addressed without the extremity of voluntary extinction. It is unconstitutional to force people to have children, and so we also shouldn’t force them not to have children either.
Voluntary extinction is something likely never to come to fruition, but overpopulation is more than likely going to be an issue. Addressing overpopulation requires accessible family planning, comprehensive sex education, and gender equality initiatives. Sustainable practices at the individual and community levels, coupled with environmental conservation efforts, help mitigate the impact. Advocacy for responsible policies completes a multifaceted approach toward achieving a balance between population size and environmental sustainability.
Additional Reading
Identity, Oppression, US Politics, Race
Check out our social media for more resources:
Leave a comment