Buzz
Antinatalism is the belief that it is nearly always unethical to bring new life into the world. While this may seem outlandish to many at first, antinatalists present compelling reasons why being born is often a mistake. As the philosopher Emil Cioran once put it, “Not to be born is undoubtedly the best plan of all. Unfortunately, it is within no one’s reach.”
The reality of the world seems to be supporting their stance. Many nations are either nearing or have already surpassed the threshold where population growth is not sustained by birth rates. One key factor contributing to this is the growing doubt that future generations will have better lives than the current one.
But, since you're here and fortunate enough to be reading Mytour, let’s dive into why antinatalists argue that you should not have children of your own.
10. You Were Never Given a Choice in Being Born
At some point, often during teenage years while debating with your parents, almost everyone blurts out the timeless complaint, “I never asked to be born!” Initially, it may seem like a childish tantrum aimed at avoiding a task. However, for antinatalists, this phrase embodies a serious ethical argument against procreation.
The reality is, no one can consent to being born. Before your parents create you, you simply do not exist. You cannot be asked whether you agree to having a life. Consent is a crucial concept in ethical discussions, as we generally believe it’s wrong to force someone into doing something against their will. By bringing a child into the world, parents are essentially imposing existence on them.
So, the next time something unfortunate happens in your life, remember that you never had a say in experiencing it.
9. Existence Involves Suffering
Many pessimistic philosophers have concluded that suffering is an inherent part of existence. Even the most ideal life we can imagine for someone will still involve some form of pain. It seems impossible to experience life without enduring some suffering, whether physical or emotional. Even those who dedicate their lives to helping others often hold a similarly grim perspective on existence.
Sigmund Freud once remarked about psychoanalysts who aim to alleviate the suffering of their patients that “the best we could hope for would be insights that left us feeling common, ordinary, everyday unhappiness.” Physicians are aware that by curing a patient today, they are merely opening the door for future suffering from other ailments.
To be human is to be conscious of ourselves, which means we not only endure pain in the moment, but we also have the ability to foresee the many ways we might suffer. Antinatalists would argue that it would have been better never to have been born into a world where suffering is so prevalent.
8. The Negative Impact of Bad Things Exceeds the Pleasure of Good Things
David Benatar, perhaps the most well-known antinatalist thinker today, discusses this idea in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. He explains that there is a fundamental imbalance between the good things in life and the bad.
Benatar argues that pain is inherently negative, which most people agree with, and pleasure is positive. A person who is born will inevitably experience both pain (negative) and pleasure (positive). However, in the case of someone who is never born, they cannot experience pain (which is a positive) and are also incapable of experiencing pleasure (which is neither good nor bad, as it is simply an absence).
According to Benatar’s argument, the preferable outcome is non-existence because there are no negative aspects to not existing, but real dangers in being alive. Moreover, pleasures are often short-lived, while pain can endure for long periods of time.
7. Parents Take a Risk with Your Life
When parents choose to have a child, they are making an immense gamble. No matter how much they hope for a fulfilling life for their child, they cannot predict what it will truly be like. The child’s life may be so full of suffering that it becomes unbearable. The child may suffer from severe physical illnesses that cause persistent pain.
Now, imagine approaching a stranger on the street and flipping a coin. One side of the coin would guarantee them a life of happiness, while the other side would doom them to a life of endless suffering. Most people would refuse to make such a gamble, deciding not to risk someone’s entire existence on a coin flip. For many antinatalists, the gamble is even more unfair because the odds of suffering outweigh those of joy. Yet, parents take this risk routinely, often without fully considering the potential consequences of bringing a life into the world.
6. In the End, We All Die
David Benatar has a fairly grim view of human existence. “At all stages in human history, life has been filled with enough unpleasantness, enough badness, and of course always ending in death,” he says. It is hard to disagree with him. Since the beginning of time, there have been around 110 billion humans that have ever been born. So far, all but 8.1 billion have died. As such, being born inevitably leads to death.
Is death bad? For antinatalists, being dead is the same as no longer existing, and not existing is absent of pain. Being dead may not be bad, but the process of dying is almost always a horrible experience. Most people would be glad to die only once in the course of their lives. Dying can involve horrible pain from an accident, being felled by a drawn-out illness, or the slow and lingering removal of our faculties due to old age.
5. Religions Suggest Non-Existence Is Better
We tend to think of religions as life-affirming and full of joy. However, many texts from world religions do not at all make it obvious that being born is a good thing.
The Book of Ecclesiastes (2:22-23) in the Bible does not paint a rosy view of human life. “For what profit shall a man have of all his labor, and vexation of spirit, with which he hath been tormented under the sun? All his days are full of sorrows and miseries, even in the night he doth not rest in mind: and is not this vanity?” In the Gospel of Luke (23:29), Jesus on the cross tells the lamenting women around him, “For behold, the days shall come, wherein they will say: Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that have not borne, and the paps that have not given suck.”
Among religious figures, Buddha may have the strongest argument for antinatalism. The first of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism is that existence is suffering. In one Buddhist sutra, when asked how humans come into being, the Buddha responds, saying, “I do not extol the production of a new existence even a little bit; nor do I extol the production of a new existence for even a moment. Why? The production of a new existence is suffering. For example, even a little [bit of] vomit stinks. In the same way, the production of a new existence, even a little bit, even for a moment, is suffering.”
4. Suicide Is Painful
For antinatalists, being born is seen as a mistake, so wouldn’t ending your life as soon as possible be the best choice? However, most philosophers who adhere to antinatalism believe suicide is not the solution.
David Benatar, in an article responding to his critics titled “Still Better Never to Have Been,” provides a perspective. “First, it is possible to think both that coming into existence is a serious harm and that death is (usually) a serious harm. Indeed, some people might think that coming into existence is a serious harm in part because the harm of death is then inevitable.”
Suicide harms the person who dies and causes suffering for those left behind. Therefore, once you are born, there is no simple escape from the situation you’ve been thrust into.
3. Humans Are Quite Terrible to Each Other
Some of the arguments presented by antinatalist philosophers depict a rather bleak image of humanity. These are the misanthropic arguments, which emphasize the harmful things humans do to one another.
Benatar viewed humans with an objective lens when formulating these arguments. “Another route to anti-natalism is via what I call a ‘misanthropic’ argument. According to this argument, humans are a deeply flawed and destructive species responsible for the suffering and deaths of billions of other humans and non-human animals. If this level of devastation were caused by another species, we would quickly suggest that new members of that species should not be brought into existence.”
What is human history if not a record of wars, dictatorships, repressions, genocides, and slavery? It’s easy to think of one or two world leaders who might have made the world a better place had they never been born. However, it’s not necessary to think on such a large scale. In our daily lives, most of the misfortunes we face are the result of actions by other humans. If this is the case, then the moral conclusion is simple: if a person is never born, they cannot harm anyone else.
2. Humans Are Pretty Terrible for the World
It is widely acknowledged that humanity has caused significant damage to the environment. From hunting species into extinction to destroying countless ecosystems, humans have shown little restraint when it comes to exploiting the planet, especially when profit is at stake. The ongoing climate crisis, driven by human activities, is now threatening the survival of species that have so far remained unaffected by our actions.
In his book Inner Experience, French philosopher Georges Bataille remarked, “Nature giving birth to man was a dying mother: she gave being to the one whose coming into the world was her own death sentence.” This reflects the core belief of ecological antinatalists—arguing that it might be better not to bring any more humans into the world, considering the harm they inflict on the environment.
1. The State of Being Alive is Worse Than Non-Existence
Throughout history, thinkers and philosophers have argued that there is something fundamentally wrong with existence. The ancient Greek playwright Sophocles eloquently expressed this sentiment in his works.
“Not to be born is, beyond all estimation, best; but when a man has seen the light of day, this is next best by far, that with utmost speed he should go back from where he came. For when he has seen youth go by, with its easy merry-making, what hard affliction is foreign to him, what suffering does he not know? Envy, factions, strife, battles, and murders. Last of all falls to his lot old age, blamed, weak, unsociable, friendless, wherein dwells every misery among miseries.”
Epicurus argued that non-existence is not harmful to humans. He stated, “Death is nothing to us. When we exist, death is not; and when death exists, we are not. All sensation and consciousness end with death, and therefore, in death, there is neither pleasure nor pain.”
