Antinatalism is the--to say the least--controversial philosophical assertion that procreation is unethical and/or immoral. Although there are more than several popular antinatalistic arguments in popular philosophical literature, there are a few that receive more attention than others. These include an advocation for the extinction of the human race through voluntarily choosing not to reproduce, and in the case of some arguments, the promotion of sterilization.



Any chance that the concept has already provoked a strong reaction within you, one way or the other... ?



Although recent recognition of the antinatalistic stance--in support and in protest--has been actualized in Internet memes and the rebuttals of pro-family groups, it is not a recent development. One example can be traced to the second century of the 'Common Era': the Marcionites believed that an evil, vicious demiurge created the visible world, and that man should stop procreating, for the sake of ending the world and as a sign of embrace to the distant, if not unknown, god of goodness. Another now defunct second century Christian subgroup, the Encratites, asserted that reproduction ‘produces fresh fodder for death’, and is therefore best avoided--and many gnostic groups in general posited that birth, if not conception, imprisons the soul in an 'evil matter' prison.



Beyond Christianity, the philosophy of the Buddha has also been interpreted as antinatalistic: as procreation causes suffering, and perpetuates the cycle of suffering, it might be concluded that all humans, and other beings for that matter, should cease reproduction.



Although many theological stances are significantly pro-natalistic, much has been written of a Western world that is declining in religious identification and worship service attendance. Karim Akerma argues that, if we are to move away from the idea of the existence of man being good ('anthropodicy'), especially if the rationale is because it is part of God's plan ('theodicy'), then man must find his own answer to the problem of suffering. However, he also proposes there is no good answer. (Yikes?)



If life is indeed a cycle of unavoidable, or at least undeletable, suffering... how is it that we got here? Peter Wessel Zapffe suggests that evolution produced a human consciousness that keeps us from operating as other animals do: we know our insignificance and that inevitable demise always lurks. We search for meaning and justice, find neither, and disillusion ourselves to compensate. He defines four repressive mechanisms we use consciously and otherwise, promoting our ignorance of suffering:



- Isolation, in which we alienate negative thoughts/feelings related to existence (e.g. not telling children harsh truths before they are ready).

- Anchoring, in which attachment to constructs (e.g. family, school, religion, government, materialism) is utilized to cope.

- Distraction, in which we change our focus of attention to abandon unpleasant thoughts/feelings.

- Sublimation, in which adaptation of negative thoughts/feelings into artistic things ‘lets out’ how we feel.



But can we find a way to escape this cycle without a commitment to the antinatalistic mission? According to Julio Cabrera, human life is inherently, incontrovertibly negative: humans begin decaying at birth, are then impacted by three ‘frictions’ (physical suffering, discouragement, interaction with aggressors), and ultimately rely on constructs (e.g. ethical, artistic, spiritual) in anxious appeal of their existential situation, in hopes of countering decay and the three frictions. As we cannot gain consent for birth and submission to the frictions, the antinatalistic solution is assumed.



One might also consider:



* If someone, or even most people, would want to be born if they had a say in the matter. Why or why not?

* What about negative utilitarianism, and the elimination of suffering outweighing the promotion of happiness? Must it always promote an antinatalistic conclusion?