Bengaluru’s Anti-Natalists on Not Having Kids & Living a Full Life

This group of anti-natalists in Bengaluru want you to pause and think before deciding to have children. Arpita Raj Bengaluru’s anti-natalists are just up and coming while a more popular movement brews in the West. | (Photo: Altered by The Quint) News Videos This group of anti-natalists in Bengaluru want you to pause and think before deciding to have children.

“When you go to a movie, and after you’ve seen the movie, you can ask yourself, ‘would I recommend this to someone else?’ Would I say that about life? I wouldn’t say that about life, it’s better to not handle the theatre.” Tom Cyriac, philosophy student and anti-natalist

The war cry of the global anti-natalist movement is ‘Stop Making Babies’, which, along with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEM) and efilism, forms a spectrum of philosophy. This war cry can now be heard in Bengaluru. Close on the heels of the Bengaluru group organising the first national meet for Indian anti-natalists in February, they are now trying to increase awareness among the general public and answer confused questions and rude inquiries by pitching an alternative thought process to the status quo. The Quint spoke to various members of the group, each occupying different positions along the spectrum, to find out their reasons for going child-free and why this agenda is a recipe to save the world.

Question Status Quo

Chandni Bhambani, a PhD scholar working on her dissertation on ‘Understanding dynamism of decision-making by couples who don’t have kids by choice’ said that while she is not against people having kids, she is against the unconsciously arrived at decision to procreate, simply because all couples are ‘meant to do so’. “The primary motivation by me to join this movement was to initiate a change in the discourse on consciously choosing to become or not become a parent. I think, in my opinion, parenthood is considered a mandate for all of us, and its considered an obligation for most and a compulsion for some,” she argues. Despite having a daughter, brand consultant Anugraha feels he is now on a philosophical journey, during the process of which he arrived at the idea that it was best not to add more humans to the world. “My journey to efilism has been from feminism to atheism to Marxism and then, efilism. I find, kind of, one leading to another in my life, beginning with feminism, and then I went on to religion and philosophy, which made me take this atheistic stand. When I studied efilism, it appealed to me. Parenthood is one of the roles that we are forced to conform to otherwise we are not normal,” Anugraha said.

Also read: This Man Wants to Sue His Parents for Giving Birth to Him

To Be or Not To Be

Online trolls who criticise their position strongly, asking them to commit suicide to reduce the population instead of suggesting that society goes child-free, are not doing much to dampen the spirits of the anti-natalists. Prathima, a 28-year-old social worker and activist, said that while her friends and family were aware of her life choices and did not pose too many awkward or intrusive questions, the hate was mainly online.

“It is only on Facebook, social media and everywhere that we have been trolled for doing these kind of activities. Their response is, ‘why don’t you commit suicide then?’. I don’t have a problem if anybody calls me a pessimist, but I think I’m more of a realist. Yes, I regret being born. Non-existence would have been much sweeter.” Prathima, social worker and activist

Tom Cyriac, a philosophy student, believes that while he does not regret his life, him being alive at present was only a consequence of a ‘selfish’ choice that his parents made. “I wouldn’t say I regret my life, but I think its unnecessary. There was no reason for me to be here, but my parents made a choice. They, in a way, used me, used me for their personal well-being without my consent. They come from very religious, orthodox families, so it is not rational to expect them to act in a way. With new information, we have to change according to the information,” he said.

An Agenda That Can Save the World?

The group argues that more human beings would lead to more problems, metaphysical as well as the very real. From believing that more humans would lead to issues with resource allocation and maximisation – with more people competing for the same amount of resources – they also believe that there is no point exposing a child without their consent to a life full of suffering. “When I got into the rat race, like finding a job, that was very difficult, finding a job and the kind of salary/remuneration we get was not enough to sustain myself. I felt that every child will undergo this problem. And I also noticed children experiencing all kinds of problems, struggling. Most part of life is suffering, joy is maybe 30 percent. Less humans, less problems. There won’t be so much competition for resources,” says Prashanth, a business owner. For now, they are here, they want to be seen and invite people to take a glimpse from their perspective.

“We are not actually forcing them into anything, right? We are just presenting an idea. Come and share our view, see the world from our perspective.” Tom Cyriac, philosophy student