The antinatalist movement: is it morally wrong to have children?

For millennia, it has been argued that the purpose of sex is for procreation. This is often repeated in Christian ideology, supported by God’s instructions to Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply”, and by God’s condemnation of Onan for using the withdrawal method of contraception. According to Saint Thomas Aquinas’s idea of Natural Law, as God seemed to have created sex for the purpose of procreation, it is morally wrong to have sex for any other purpose (including for pleasure). Of course, the later identification of a clitoris, a body part existing solely for sexual pleasure, contradicts Aquinas’s idea. Furthermore, this is an incredibly phallocentric idea of sex; under this account, sex between two people of the same gender, or sex via technology, or any other sexual acts that do not involve vaginal penetration by a penis, cannot be considered sex. In the modern age, almost everyone in Western countries understands this to be outdated. However, there is rising discussion of the idea that not only is procreation not the sole purpose of sex, it should actually be considered a negative consequence of it.

In 1973, Ursala K. Le Guin released a thought-provoking short story entitled “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”(click here to read it in full for free). It describes a summer festival in the city of Omelas, which is presented as a complete utopia. There is no social inequality among the citizens, and, while isolated from the rest of the world, they have access to advanced technology and plentiful resources. Despite living in perpetual happiness, they are still as emotionally intelligent and complex as we understand ourselves to be. However, the narrator reveals that this state of “perfection” is dependent on the imprisonment and suffering of a single child. There have been many interpretations of the story, all which seem to see Omelas as representative of either the human psyche or the world as a whole. Also open to interpretation is whether the story offers a solution to whichever social, psychological or philosophical issue that is being addressed.

The story ends by explaining that, while initially upset upon learning the truth of how their happiness is dependent on suffering, most citizens of Omelas ultimately accept the bargain and continue to leave in peace. However, a few wake up and silently walk away. “The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.” Those who walk away vary in age and gender, but the one thing that they all have in common is that each must walk alone. As I was reading this, the obvious “solution” that Le Guin was proposing was death. However, even for a writer often inspired by philosophy, a short story with the purposes of encouraging cynics to commit suicide goes even beyond nihilism. So, in my view, the alternative solution does not concern death, but rather a state of non-living. Instead of leaving the world completely, it will do to simply not bring anymore life into the world.

Antinatalism is the belief that to have children is morally wrong. Robert Smith, the frontman of post-punk band The Cure, once stated that “I objected to being born, and I refuse to impose life on someone else.” More notably, a 27-year-old man named Raphael Samuel, made headlines for filing a lawsuit against his parents for giving birth to him without his consent. Interestingly, some ancient Christians, such as the Marcionites and the Encratites, held this position. There is also a teaching of the Buddha which reads “If he would only realize what suffering he would add […] he would desist from the procreation of children.” However, now it is considered less of a religious position and more of a philosophical one. Utilitarianism is the moral position that states that the act that causes the most pleasure and the least pain is the act that is morally right. This has famously been summarised as ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, a paraphrased version of a Jeremy Bentham quote. One branch of Utilitarianism is Negative Utilitarianism, which prioritises the minimisation of suffering over the maximisation of pleasure. When a child is brought into the world, they are going to experience (and inflict) suffering whether their life as a whole is a happy one or not. As Narveson asserted, there is no moral obligation to produce a child even if we could be sure that it will be happy throughout its life, whereas there is a moral obligation (according to negative utilitarianism) not to produce a child if it can be foreseen that it will be unhappy. Therefore, it can only ever be morally wrong to procreate.

One could also become an antinatalist for social and/or environmental reasons. Overpopulation is becoming a huge issue. It was only after 200,000 years of human history that human population reached one billion, and only 200 more years to reach 7 billion. If we continue to reproduce at the rate that we are, it is estimated that the world’s population will reach 10 billon by 2050. In a recent report, the United Nations stated that we will need to increase our food production by at least 50% in order to feed this number. Furthermore, animal rights activists object against an increase in human population due to the suffering humans inflict on innocent animals for fur, meat, dairy products and animal testing. Also, since the industrial revolution, many animals are losing their habitats or seeing them become too hazardous to live in. Deforestation occurs as trees are cut down for paper, building or fuel, or to make space for factories or other industrial buildings. Marine plastic pollution is killing 100,000 marine mammals and turtles a year. Climate change is causing the ice caps to melt, leaving polar bears to face starvation and reproductive failure. According to Canadian Researchers, the best lifestyle choice to reduce greenhouse gasses, by a huge margin, to have one fewer child. This was measured in tonnes of Carbon Dioxide per person saved per year, and for comparison, having one fewer child would save 58.6 tonnes, and the next most effective lifestyle change (going vegan) saves 3.56 tonnes.

In conclusion, there are many reasons one may become an antinatalist. Personally, I don’t think it is morally wrong to have children. In fact, another utilitarian viewpoint could prioritise positive utility as opposed to negative utility. It could be that a child could grow up to cure a disease, or save a life, or on a smaller scale, bring happiness to other people’s lives. However, perhaps we can reassess the societal expectation that people, particularly women, should grow up, get married and have children. This is traditional and normalised life path to take, and there can even be judgement if they choose another one. However, if we can agree that procreation is morally neutral, and that abstaining from procreation could have potentially positive effects, there is no need for this judgement. Furthermore, while adoption is the norm for homosexual couples, couples who have struggled with fertility and single parents, it should also be considered by those who are able to have biological children. There are millions of children around the world who need homes, and there is a misconception that an adopted child wouldn’t feel like “yours” in the way a biological child would. However, all you need to do is speak to a parent who has adopted a child, or a child who was raised by adoptive parents, to understand that this is not the case. Ask any father if whether they carried a child in their womb affected their love for their child, or ask any mother who suffered from postnatal mental health issues if an inability to bond with their child in the first few weeks or months negatively impacted their relationship with them once they felt able to bond. Again, if you are certain that you want to procreate, that choice is entirely yours. Some people are born with that innate desire and everybody deserves to experience what they have always longed to experience. But take your time deciding whether it is you that wants to procreate, or if it is society telling you that is the case; if it is the latter, there are other paths available to you.