Is choosing not to have kids the most ethical act today? \ stacker news ~AskSN

pull down to refresh

Is choosing not to have kids the most ethical act today?

260 sats \ 51 comments \ @hybridbits 18 Apr AskSN

The question

With the world facing climate collapse, rising authoritarianism, economic precarity, and growing mental health crises, more people are questioning the assumption that having children is inherently good. Bringing someone into existence - always without their consent - exposes them to inevitable suffering?

Is choosing not to create life actually the most compassionate and ethical decision in today’s world?

A guy sued his parents for giving birth to him

Raphael Samuel, a man from Mumbai and outspoken antinatalist, announced he was suing his parents for giving birth to him - without his consent. Wearing fake beard and sunglasses in his viral videos, Samuel argued that bringing someone into existence, without their permission, is a morally questionable act. “I love my parents,” he clarified, “but they had me for their joy and their needs.”

His stance wasn’t just a personal rebellion - it was a sharp critique of a culture that treats procreation as a default, rather than a decision with profound ethical consequences. In his view, life is filled with unavoidable suffering, and to create a new life is to impose that burden on someone who never had a say.

Antinatalist philosopher David Benatar

Benatar (author of Better Never to Have Been) argues that coming into existence is always a harm, that while the absence of pain is good even if no one experiences it, the absence of pleasure is only bad if someone is deprived of it.

From that logic, choosing not to have kids isn’t just personal preference - it might actually be the most ethical decision one can make. But is that too abstract or pessimistic? Genuinely curious where others land on this.

view all related items

284 sats \ 22 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Apr

Almost no one wishes they didn't exist. Antinatalism is ridiculous.

The strongest correlation in economic history is that more people = more prosperity.

36 sats \ 11 replies \ @028559d218 19 Apr

Africa (the continent) has a way higher Birth Rate. Way higher than Japan, South Korea, or even the United States...

But it is not more prosperous quite the contrary actually

14 sats \ 10 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Apr

True, and?

Africa is also more prosperous than it was when there were fewer Africans.

31 sats \ 7 replies \ @denlillaapan 19 Apr

Undisc bringing the heat. No mercy, bitches

21 sats \ 6 replies \ @028559d218 19 Apr

I think we're talking past each other. Countries that focus on economic development and education recognize... that it's hard to educate well very large populations.

Japan is a perfect example of this.

Asian families tend to have fewer children and educate/raise them very carefully. The people are very well educated - quality over quantity.

African societies are the exact opposite. Education and economic development take a huge backseat... and they have "lots of children." but when there's no education, no infrastructure and no government what difference does it make?

You have millions of poor people and in the worst cases starving people with awful outcomes.

Somalia, South Sudan, Niger, the Congo are all examples are this.

23 sats \ 5 replies \ @denlillaapan 19 Apr

you're missing the point, I believe.

Looking not at a snapshot in time but over decades/generations, every country has lower fertility -- Africa is just lagging. While African women today have more kids than any other place, the observation/correlation that their nations are the poorest is immaterial... every country has made that economic journey from: high births, high mortality, low econ development, to low births, low mortality, high econ development.

I don't see what's gained by pointing to Africa being behind on that curve

view all 5 replies

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 19 Apr

I think we're... missing the point. Africa the continent unfortunately is not what i would consider prosperous

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Apr

I didn't say it was, but the Malthusians and their heirs would expect a poor place to be poorer with more people and the opposite is true.

That was my point, so I don't think I'm missing it.

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @hybridbits OP 19 Apr

Almost no one wishes they didn't exist.

But what about those struggling with suicidal thoughts? Don’t they often wish they didn’t exist? Over 700k people die by suicide every year around the globe. What about people in extreme financial conditions, or those suffering from chronic diseases, disabilities, or unrelenting pain? For many, the desire to escape their circumstances can make life feel unbearable. The argument for antinatalism isn't about denying the potential for happiness or prosperity, but recognizing the real and devastating suffering that can accompany existence.

more people = more prosperity

While it's true that more people can contribute to economic growth, this doesn't seem enough to justify bringing more suffering into the world.

106 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Apr

What you're saying just doesn't support the antinatalist position. Again, the vast majority of people are glad they exist. That means the expected value of creating a new person is that it will be a person who's glad to be alive. Choosing not to have kids is depriving someone of life they would have valued.

Further, even people who go through suicidal periods are not suicidal all the time. So, even the population you're pointing to spend large portions of their lives preferring to be alive.

To choose non-life for someone who would prefer life, because you don't like that they might experience suffering is extremely disrespectful. People can persevere through a lot and don't wish they had died during their periods of hardship.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @hybridbits OP 19 Apr

Interesting points. But I can't shake the feeling that:

Choosing not to have kids is depriving someone of life they would have valued

Can be valid for the other side as well. The antinatalist argument believes that there is more suffering than pleasure/non-suffering. ‘Choosing TO have kids is condemning someone to a life they would probably hate.’ And (just guessing) that’s probably true, especially if you’re born in a shitty country like India, Libya, or in a favela in the northeast of Brazil. I dunno, dude. I need to read more and live more to get to a good answer.

129 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Apr

Yes, both can be true, but why err on the side of the (far) less likely outcome?

there is more suffering than pleasure/non-suffering

In what way can this claim possibly be evaluated? Revealed preference (almost everyone continues to choose living) is the only evidence we have and it's extremely against your assertion.

Even people born into situations that you deem undesirable generally prefer to be alive. Who are you to decide for people that their lives aren't worth living? This seems unbelievably arrogant and entitled.

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 19 Apr

I need to read more and live more to get to a good answer.

You need a reality check. You should go and ask these people why they don’t kill themselves because they must be suffering so much. Maybe even offer to lend them a hand out of compassion?

30 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 19 Apr

Don’t they often wish they didn’t exist?

Suicidal people don’t want to die. They just don’t see any other option.

Suicide is like jumping out of a building that’s on fire and knowing you’re going to die. You don’t want to die, but you see no other option.

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 19 Apr

That's really the final nail in the argument.

24 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 19 Apr

I see what you almost did there

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 19 Apr

I thought it would be in poor taste.

view all 1 replies

114 sats \ 4 replies \ @grayruby 19 Apr

It is ethical to not have kids if you don't want kids and you will be a shit parent to them. It is ethical to have kids if you want to have children and will care for them and do everything in your power to give them a good childhood.

I find both the "With the world facing climate collapse, rising authoritarianism, economic precarity, and growing mental health crises, more people are questioning the assumption that having children is inherently good." and the "coming into existence is always a harm, that while the absence of pain is good even if no one experiences it, the absence of pleasure is only bad if someone is deprived of it." arguments totally moronic.

And since we can't survey unfertilized eggs to see if they hope to be fertilized and become humans the whole idea of "I didn't ask to be born" is pretty friggin stupid too.

20 sats \ 3 replies \ @hybridbits OP 19 Apr

The world is full of people who would be better off not being born into situations where they’ll suffer.

When we talk about things like climate collapse, authoritarianism, etc, it's not just some vague concern - it's happening. The choice to bring children into a world like that is a serious one. If you choose to bring a child to the world, but you live in a socialist shithole, for example, that's not very nice.

And about the 'I didn't ask to be born' idea, it's not about asking for permission, but about the ethics of creating someone who has no control over their existence. We can't survey potential lives, but it doesn’t invalidate the argument that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't assume it’s always right to bring someone into the world when it's filled with so much suffering. Almost never is.

11 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 19 Apr

The world is also full of people born into situations where they'll suffer and they overcome that suffering to have fulfilling and joyful lives. The world is also full of people born into good situations. It is impossible to have a life with no suffering.

Besides the people in the situations you are talking about are not the ones questioning having kids. It is primarily privileged westerners.

"the ethics of creating someone who has no control over their existence". They have no control over having been born (existing) but once they are are old enough to be self sufficient they have control over what they can do with their existence and they can choose to end it if they like.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @hybridbits OP 19 Apr

It is primarily privileged Westerners

Some of the biggest antinatalist movements are actually in India and China.

And they can choose to end it if they like

But if they choose to, surpassing the instincts of self-preservation, it’s not very easy or painless to opt out (lol). I’m kind of on the side of natalism these days because I must believe that there is hope in life, but the antinatalist arguments are much more convincing.

Thanks for the responses, I will think more about the theme.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 19 Apr

It is primarily privileged Westerners

Some of the biggest antinatalist movements are actually in India and China.

From your link in #947808:

There are numerous ways to expand the debate about anti-natalism. For instance, scholars of religion have had little to say about anti-natalism, but it is unclear that they can completely dismiss certain of these arguments out of hand. Additionally, the debate about anti-natalism has primarily been conducted within the context of Western philosophy. It is an open question how the arguments for anti-natalism would be evaluated by various non-Western ethical theories. Finally, environmental ethics and population ethics have had little to say about anti-natalism, and as such there are many avenues for further exploration.

b. Anti-Natalism and Non-Western Ethics

The philosophical literature on anti-natalism is dominated by those working in Western philosophy.

Is your own source not contradicting you?

26 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln 19 Apr

Antinatalist subreddit is the must depressing place I've visited...

Wow, is this what counts as ratio on SN? High level of interaction yet nearly no upvote sats...

295 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 19 Apr

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 19 Apr

😆😆

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @hybridbits OP 19 Apr

Used IA to correct the grammar, just that. English is my second language.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @398ja 19 Apr

I do it often too, to avoid being embarrassed later. Sometimes, I will double-check the grammar or the structure of the sentence with AI...

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln 19 Apr

IA = Intelligence artificielle?~~

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @hybridbits OP 19 Apr

Oh, sorry. In Portuguese it's IA (Inteligência Artificial). I switched.

52 sats \ 0 replies \ @FmpPerspective 19 Apr

Choosing to have children isn’t blind optimism. It’s an act of defiance against systems that profit from despair. It’s a vote for continuity, beauty, and hope—in spite of suffering.

The world is broken, yes. But children aren’t the problem. They might just be the reason to fix it.

75 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 19 Apr

Nah

Have kids. It changes everything for the better.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @hybridbits OP 19 Apr

You had them, but did you think more about yourself and your experience or really was about them? Like, there’s this movie, Arrival (2016). Amazing film. This is kind of a medium spoiler, but you should still watch it:

The protagonist can see the future, and she knows her child will die young. Yet, she chooses to have the child anyway, because of how beautiful the experience will be, and yada yada

And I kind of see her decision as more about her own desire to have the kid than about truly considering the kid and her life. Like, yes, the child will be loved, will have a good life (until the cancer), she’ll be happy for the most part. And maybe the mother chooses to have her so the child can experience all those positive things, that she already know that will happen (she saw the future).

But at the same time, it feels very narcissistic, because of the obvious.

You, as a parent, how do you see that? You know your kids will probably suffer in life (even just a heartbreak, or a broken arm), and you’re partly responsible for that. What’s your view?

81 sats \ 0 replies \ @zapsammy 19 Apr

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Dkryptoenth 19 Apr

It's crazy choosing not to have kids 🧒

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 19 Apr

I am highly sympathetic to this viewpoint. Bringing children into this horrible world we have built is unethical. It’s not getting any better.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 19 Apr

no.

These dudes don't deserve our attention. (i.e., this recent Tom Woods podcast w Kevin Dolan https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-2632-is-every-healthy-thing-right-wing-now/id716825890?i=1000703806677)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @keys 19 Apr freebie

A very shallow take to say the least. Benatar's argument is fundamentally nested in Closed Individualism, which is the default view in Ontological Qualia.

The idea that a “person can be harmed by coming into existence” is developed within a conceptual framework in which the inhabitants of the universe are narrative beings.

Read the article below to get a deeper ontological view on this:

https://qri.org/blog/open-individualism

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @398ja 19 Apr

Benatar (author of Better Never to Have Been) argues that coming into existence is always a harm, that while the absence of pain is good even if no one experiences it, the absence of pleasure is only bad if someone is deprived of it. From that logic, choosing not to have kids isn’t just personal preference - it might actually be the most ethical decision one can make.

The premises in the statement are questionable. Life, or the purpose of existence, is more than just hedonism. Actually, it has nothing to do with it. This is just so wrong.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @022fbc9cef 19 Apr

If you’d prefer not to be born yourself, do not have kids. Hell, just go kill yourself right away and you will save the environment and the planet more than if you go around spitting stuff against the most natural and beautiful thing ever - having kids.

If you are happy to be alive, at least majority of the time, have kids, as normal people do. It is good for you, it is good for the kids, it is good for the planet, it is good for the universe.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Brunswick 19 Apr

Anyone who won't have children because they believe something this stupid, should not reproduce.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @hybridbits OP 19 Apr

It's not so shallow. I'll leave this here for anyone interested in understanding Antinatalism more deeply: https://iep.utm.edu/anti-natalism/

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Brunswick 19 Apr

I completely agree that anti-natalists should not have children

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 19 Apr

We live in the most beautiful and prosperous time in human history. It will only get better! Warren Buffett would pay any amount of money he could to be a 20 year old today!

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @scuffed 19 Apr

No. Make many kids. I like Tucker Carlson's take on it:

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @hybridbits OP 19 Apr

But it's only from the perspective of the parents.