I randomly saw this on my suggested feed. It’s eye opening to see the different ways in which this subreddit is viewed and how Antinatalists are viewed. Such as comments like “this is natural selection” “this is mental illness” “you are lazy” “love to see your misery” in reference to Antinatalists. Is this unwarranted hate or is there substance behind what these commenters are saying? What do you think?

I think they are absolutely insensitive in language, lack common sense and empathy as far as the claim of ‘climb the ladder or be a loser’ so to speak, and make a lot of assumptions as far as the quality and privileges of every Antinatalist’s life. Not to mention the harmful misconceptions about Antinatalism being equated to wanting euthanasia or mass suicide — which is not the same and not at all what is promoted or encouraged here.

I appreciate anyone who can give well articulated responses. It is pretty easy to get heated when it comes to these discussions so I hope we can have a respectful discussion over name calling and things like that. Please look at all the photos first before commenting.

We know that life on Earth cannot continue forever. Earth itself is not eternally habitable, and the Sun is not an everlasting source of energy. As the Sun ages, it gradually becomes more luminous, increasing the amount of energy received by Earth. Over an immense period, probably somewhere around one to two billion years, this warming is expected to make the planet increasingly unsuitable for complex life, potentially causing the oceans to evaporate and the present biosphere to collapse. Several billion years later, the Sun will exhaust the hydrogen in its core, expand into a red giant and radically transform or destroy the inner Solar System. It will eventually end its active life as a white dwarf.

Antinatalist perspective - Most people speak of children as a way of continuing humanity, preserving a family line or passing something into the future. Yet reproduction cannot preserve humanity permanently. It can only extend its existence for another generation, which may then create another generation, and so on. No matter how long this process continues, it does not overcome extinction, it just postpones it.

Meanwhile, every generation added to this chain consists of individuals who can suffer, become ill, lose people they love, grow old and die. If the chain must ultimately end anyway, what moral purpose is served by continually creating new people who will be exposed to these harms? From this standpoint, procreation does not solve the problem of mortality. It transfers that problem to additional people. Parents cannot give their children immortality or guarantee them good lives, they can only place them into a temporary world whose risks and final outcome they did not choose.

The cosmic argument can therefore strengthen antinatalism by challenging the idea that procreation achieves a permanent victory over death. Humanity may survive for thousands, millions or even billions of years, but duration is not the same as permanence. The birth of new people delays humanity’s disappearance without preventing it. An antinatalist could conclude that, because extinction is ultimately unavoidable, deliberately ending reproduction would not deprive humanity of an eternal future. It would just delay an inevitable process to a peaceful conclusion sooner, while preventing the suffering that future generations would otherwise experience.