Anti-natalism is without a doubt on the rise.

[RainAndSadness]

Just out of curiousity I did some research as to why birth rates are falling. And well, despite anti-natalism being misunderstood, rejected or straight up ridiculed in the mainstream discourse, it does play a significant role in why people don't have children. If you look at this Pew Research study, some of the reasons why people don't have children is because they couldn't afford them, because of the state of the world, because of the enviroment, because they had themselves negative experiences growing up - all of these, even if subconscious - are anti-natalist concerns. And these anti-natalist concerns are actually way more prevelant among younger people. So tere are way more anti-natalists than you'd might imagine, many just don't know it. But I think the people who make fun of anti-natalism don't really have much to laugh about as the declining birth rate in developed countries proves there is one group that's winning, and that's us. Just wanted to point that out and I know we have a lot of anti-natalists in this forum so if there's a place to discuss this issue, it's this forum.

And yeah, a lot of people just don't want to give up their freedom and take on the responsibility to take care of someone for at least 18 years, nowadays it's even more than that. The late stage capitalist nature of our world is accelerating the process of a childfree world in many regions around this world.

Study: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/reasons-adults-give-for-not-having-children/
This study focuses on the US population but it's very likely these results are mirrored in Canada, Europe, Australia and other countries with the same or better living standard.

Survey results of people 50 and older.


Survey results of people under 50 years old:


Just thought this might be a good time for some good news. Cheers.

 

[LostLily]

Considering how messed up the world is, it would be cruel to bring an innocent child into it. Especially since I don't know if i will be around to take care of said child.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Not having kids because you can't afford to, because of past negative experiences with family growing up, or because of the current state of the world aren't themself reflections of antinatalist values. They are talking about voluntary childlessness here which isn't the same as antinatalism. I highly doubt that most of these people view procreation as a whole as being morally wrong and it wouldn't surprise me if most of these people would go out of their way to defend other people's decision to procreate. They likely view their reasons for not having children as being more personal (i.e. only applying them alone) rather than as a philosophical position on their general views of procreation. The only people here who you could argue that are potentially likely to hold antinatalist views are those deciding not to for environmental reasons, but even then I feel like that's being a bit generous.

The only way to tell if antinatalism is on the rise or not would be by doing a survey specifically on people's moral views of procreation, not through looking at surveys on voluntary childlessness. Otherwise, you are just jumping to conclusions (no offence)./gen

 

[RainAndSadness]

Not having kids because you can't afford to, because of past negative experiences with family growing up, or because of the current state of the world aren't themself reflections of antinatalist values. They are talking about voluntary childlessness here which isn't the same as antinatalism. I highly doubt that most of these people view procreation as a whole as being morally wrong and it wouldn't surprise me if most of these people would go out of their way to defend other people's decision to procreate. They likely view their reasons for not having children as being more personal (i.e. only applying them alone) rather than as a philosophical position on their general views of procreation. The only people here who you could argue that are potentially likely to hold antinatalist views are those deciding not to for environmental reasons, but even then I feel like that's being a bit generous.

The only way to tell if antinatalism is on the rise or not would be by doing a survey specifically on people's moral views of procreation, not through looking at surveys on voluntary childlessness. Otherwise, you are just jumping to conclusions (no offence)./gen

Any anti-natalist that cares about individual autonomy will defend your right to bring children into this world - so no, I disagree with you there. There is no way to prevent people from bringing children into this world that isn't immoral as you infringe on their individual and bodily autonomy if you do so. Anti-natalism is simply the philosophical viewpoint that it's immoral to bring new sentient life into existence - with various different explanations and justifications. It has nothing to do with practices that put that idea into action. Most simply advocate and educate for their viewpoints in my experience.

If you don't bring a child into this world because you're concerned they might not have a good life on this planet or because you can't provide for them, these are (both factors that increase harm to your child and therefore) moral considerations that is in line with anti-natalism. There are anti-natalist movements which for example make enviromental arguments the front and center of their philosophical viewpoint. I would also say about myself that I don't really make a big fuss about the lack of consent when you give birth to someone, there are much more practical and effective arguments in favor of anti-natalism such as decreasing harm to the enviroment, decreasing quality of life on this planet or the inability to provide for your children.

So, to sum it all up, what makes you an anti-natalist isn't calling yourself one, it's agreeing with moral (and therefore anti-natalist) arguments against procreation and abstaining from bringing a child into this life, that's all that's there is to anti-natalism. Anything that goes beyond that makes you an extremely suspicious person in my opinion as any action you take beyond that violates someone's very personal rights.

 

[SilentSadness]

As much as I'd love to agree, this is completely futile. Antinatalism will never win because there are too many natalists who will reproduce until the end of time. Most people lack any kind of empathy and can't even fathom a world where they don't continue their bloodline. It only takes a few hundred people to get to where we are today. If antinatalists don't have children that just leaves natalists to have children and teach them harmful natalist rhetoric. That's why I consider the state of the world to be hopeless.

 

[Nauyaca]

I don't think it matters anyway, if antinatalism is on the rise, well, that is a good thing, if it remains a fringe view, that means the responsible people will die out, and the irresponsible will reproduce, inheriting the "cultural" characteristics and traits of their destructive parents, becoming agents of destruction themselves and thus, contributing to their own very ironic destruction by means of war, food scarcity, environmental degradation, etc. precipitating their own demise, in the end, the result will be the same, it's just that their method will be way more painful, but by then, neither you nor I will be alive, this is a "they" problem, so don't dwell to much on it, if you refrain from reproducing, you already gain a very precious thing, the peace of mind that comes with a responsible choice, I think that is more than enough, at least for me

 

[Gustav Hartmann]

There is an inverse relationship between income and fertility called demographic-economic paradox. This means that the overpopulation of the world can only be reduced in a peaceful way, if the complete world has the same prosperity like the western countries have today. This means they will consume the same ressources per capita. This could kill the planet.

In my opinion it is only important that my genes survive. So I support anti-natalism very much, this way my three children and up to now eight grand children have more living space and recources. The secret not to die out is education by example, we let our children always feel that they are wanted and loved and that children are the meaning of life.

 

[LigottiIsRight]

Whether it's because well-thought antinatalist convictions or simply having better things to do with their time than taking care of a child, with all that is in between, every person that abstains to procreate is something to celebrate.

 

[bankai]

Good, I'm happy. That's just less suffering to go around. If you really think about it, no one gets to choose if they are born or no.

That silly issue aside. People really need to think how they can care for the child they're having. Can they provide for food, clothing, shelter, education and enrichment? If they can't then just leave it be. There's no need to have a child just to conform to societal standards.

 

[Life'sA6itch]

I think it's a good thing. There's too many reckless "parents" in the world with little to no means of providing for themselves, let alone children. Yet, often these are the very ones bearing children repeatedly. Ugh

 

[mundanejane]

GOOD

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

Any anti-natalist that cares about individual autonomy will defend your right to bring children into this world - so no, I disagree with you there. There is no way to prevent people from bringing children into this world that isn't immoral as you infringe on their individual and bodily autonomy if you do so. Anti-natalism is simply the philosophical viewpoint that it's immoral to bring new sentient life into existence - with various different explanations and justifications. It has nothing to do with practices that put that idea into action. Most simply advocate and educate for their viewpoints in my experience.

If you don't bring a child into this world because you're concerned they might not have a good life on this planet or because you can't provide for them, these are (both factors that increase harm to your child and therefore) moral considerations that is in line with anti-natalism. There are anti-natalist movements which for example make enviromental arguments the front and center of their philosophical viewpoint. I would also say about myself that I don't really make a big fuss about the lack of consent when you give birth to someone, there are much more practical and effective arguments in favor of anti-natalism such as decreasing harm to the enviroment, decreasing quality of life on this planet or the inability to provide for your children.

So, to sum it all up, what makes you an anti-natalist isn't calling yourself one, it's agreeing with moral (and therefore anti-natalist) arguments against procreation and abstaining from bringing a child into this life, that's all that's there is to anti-natalism. Anything that goes beyond that makes you an extremely suspicious person in my opinion as any action you take beyond that violates someone's very personal rights.

Defending the right to have children under the banner of "individual autonomy" kinda rejects itself when we take into account that the "individual autonomy" of the children is being violated by creating them without their consent. That's the fundmental premise as to why it's immoral to have children outside all other concerns regarding the world you'd be bringing them into. I suppose one could argue that an individual's autonomy can't be violated until they already exist, but it wouldn't be one I'd agree with.

There's of course many facets to being anti-natalist, but unless you're morally opposed to the act of procreation in and of itself, then you'd wouldn't be "anti", you'd just have not partaken yourself. I think that most people who aren't having children now would be perfectly fine with having them if conditions were better, or even if they were just less educated. Hence why their objections aren't formed along moral grounds, but rather the inconvience of being a parent.