Many people react negatively to antinatalism, often because they perceive it as a philosophy that results in the end of humanity—”there will be no more people.” This reaction invites a deeper question: why is the absence of future generations inherently bad? Antinatalism, argues that by refraining from bringing a person into existence, one ensures that person will never suffer. In this view, not having children spares hypothetical individuals from the burdens of life, including the expectation to perpetuate a legacy that ultimately holds no personal significance once one is deceased.
Traditionally, it is believed that human beings “live on” through their offspring. This notion is sentimental fantasy. There is no rational basis to assume that people continue in any conscious way through their descendants.
The individuals who might continue humanity that do not yet exist, have no desire or obligation to fulfil any roles, nor do they benefit from being brought into existence. Thus, the idea of doing nonexistent children a favour by birthing said children is misguided, as there are no existing children for whom the favour is intended.
It is noteworthy that those who express concern about the continuation of humanity often overlook the fact that approximately 60 million people die each year. The question arises: what about their “continuation”? While the loss of loved ones is mourned on an individual level, the argument focuses on the broader scale of humanity. If humanity were to gradually disappear, it may seem emotionally distressing, but upon closer examination, it is likely that most people would not be deeply troubled, especially if they understand the reason behind it—the cessation of suffering.
Parents commonly claim they would sacrifice their lives for their children. Given this willingness to protect their offspring, why not avoid having children altogether as an act of compassion? In contemporary culture, choosing not to reproduce is increasingly feasible and may be considered a straightforward way to prevent suffering.
Some individuals argue that the cessation of suffering for all humanity, as proposed by antinatalism, is comparable to suicide. This comparison does not hold up under scrutiny, however. In reality, antinatalism does not involve the act of killing anyone; rather, it is about choosing not to bring new generations into existence. No lives are being ended—there are simply lives that are not beginning.
This approach is not unusual or radical within society. At any given moment, countless children are not being born. Everyday practices such as contraception, family planning, and abstinence all serve to prevent the birth of new children, yet none of these actions are considered to be forms of suicide. Instead, they are accepted as responsible or even necessary decisions made for a variety of personal, social, or economic reasons.