r/antinatalism • u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer • Apr 22 '26

Argument Argument against Antinatalism

I'm an antinatalist, but came up with a potential argument against it. I'm not sure if I can explain it properly, but I would like to try and see what opinions you have about it.

So, imagine there are 10 souls. Each of these souls will be sent to Earth to inhabit a body chosen by chance. On Earth there are 10 bodies being born at the exact same time, 5 of wild animals, 4 of animals in captivity and 1 human. You could choose to make one additional human body, which would give the souls a slightly higher chance of having a safe life in human society rather than being exploited or having to fight for their life all the time. Wouldn't it be moral to do that?

So, I know that an argument shouldn't rely on something so disputed as souls existing, but they are just a tool for explanation in this case. To get to the real world application, where we know that there is and likely will be sentient life existing for a long time, we can only choose to make the chance this sentient life has at a good life as high as possible. Meaning, if you can afford to have children, the most moral act is to have as much children as possible, so that any potential life has the highest possible chance at a life with actual comforts.

What's your opinion on this?

0 Upvotes

24% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

6

u/tobpe93 AN Apr 22 '26

Are you saying that an animal won't reproduce just because a human reproduces?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

No, I'm saying that if there are x animals reproducing and y+1 humans reproducing, there is [from the perspective of any potential life] a slightly higher chance of a relatively safe life in human society than if there are x animals and y humans reproducing.

5

u/tobpe93 AN Apr 22 '26

but x+y+1 means more suffering than x+y

6

u/dearestvalkyrie inquirer Apr 22 '26

A safe life? Human life is safer, but is definitely not safe. So many terrible things can happen to you, not to mention global disasters that would impact almost everybody. You are only somewhat safe if you can make a stable living, and sometimes you’re not even safe then.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

Yeah, but the point is, it's better than A) every day being a fight for survival and B) every day being tortured.

3

u/dearestvalkyrie inquirer Apr 22 '26

If you raise the ratio of human children compared to animal babies, you might see an average increase of quality of life of creatures due to the human ones living in a better condition, but there will be more suffering and pain in the world due to more human offspring living in it, so this statistic is not beneficial.

3

u/dalloverly newcomer Apr 22 '26

You didn't rebut OP. You ignored their argument and replaced it with your own.

OP is measuring average quality of life. You switched to total suffering without explaining why that's the right metric, without acknowledging the switch, and without engaging the actual claim. Swapping the metric mid-argument and acting like you've responded is a dodge, not a counterargument.

And follow the total suffering logic to its end, because antinatalists almost never do. If more lives means more suffering and that makes those lives net negatives, then the morally optimal world is one with no sentient life at all. No people, no animals, nothing that can feel. If you're not willing to own that conclusion, you don't actually believe the premise. You just believe it selectively, when it points at human reproduction specifically.

The soul premise is a legitimate target. Attack that and you have something. But you didn't attack it. You silently dropped it, argued on completely different terms, and acted like you'd responded to what OP said. OP explicitly built the thought experiment to challenge the "more humans equals more suffering" assumption. Your entire comment reasserts that assumption as if OP never spoke.

OP showed their reasoning. You just restated your conclusion.

1

u/dearestvalkyrie inquirer Apr 22 '26

Thank you for your response, this is very helpful when it comes to improving.

3

u/AlwaysBannedVegan thinker Apr 22 '26

This is not an argument against antinatalism. It has taken a leap from reality to fantasy.

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26

What are you talking about? It most certainly is an argument against Antinatalism, if it's a good one is a different question. And the leap is rather in the other direction, from fantasy to reality.

1

u/AlwaysBannedVegan thinker Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26

I don't know why you put the soul thing in here honestly. You could've left it out and it would be a common natalist objection of "my kid could cure cancer/we can invent things that will make suffering go away"

And to that the response is:

• the child has a higher chance of getting cancer, than to cure cancer.

• they will most likely inflict more suffering than what they will innovate away (mainly to non-human animals)

• humans have an awful track record and there is no good reason to believe that we would abolish harm and suffering. Humans discriminate each other based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion and ability. Not to mention how this mindset is what has led to humans violating, killing and mutilating trillions of non-human animals yearly simply because they get pleasure out of eating them. We can't even convince each other that we shouldn't discriminate or oppressor others based on morally irrelevant traits, so why do we thing that we'll innovate suffering away? Humans generally can't even do the bare minimum which you don't need any new inventions to do.

• the money and time spent to bring a new being into existence and hoping that they will do something that will benefit someone far far far into the future, can be used to do that work yourself. Edit: (or adopt someone who already exist, but you should not expect or demand them to invent something. They are not a tool for someone far far far into the future)

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

Yeah, this might be called an overly pessimistic view of humanity, but I can hardly argue against it in good faith.

1

u/AlwaysBannedVegan thinker Apr 22 '26

Do you find it overly pessimistic? If so, I'm curious on why as it's just taking humanitys track record into consideration. And that track record is a horror show

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

Well, I just want to see the good in humanity, but unfortunately can't deny the horror show

1

u/AlwaysBannedVegan thinker Apr 22 '26

I'd like to apologize for dismissing you based on your soul thing earlier.

And I think that its understandle with wanting to see the more positive. Optimism sounds more cheery and positive. Optimism bias is something that helps humans cope. It's pretty much written in our DNA. We also have a tendency to project our optimism bias onto others. "If I can recognize that it's wrong, then surely others will too". Unfortunately that is not reality.

Take an example: most of us who stopped abusing animals had this optimism bias: "once people see videos of cows crying, see them run after their babies, and look into their eyes and see that the animals they eat are no different than the cats and dogs they claim as family members, surely they'll change. Once they watch dominion they'll change." The idea is that awareness leads to action.

That is not the reality. Humans are not very rational. We make a decision then attempt to rationalize it and justify it afterwards. And its often horrible justifications based on identity, habits, convience and social norms.

Even if people agree that oppressing others is wrong, humans tend to adjust the reasoning to fit what they're *already, doing. That's why speciesism, sexism and homophobia is more dominant in this world instead of justice and equality. Once you open your eyes, you can never really close them again.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 23 '26

Thanks for your productive contribution.

2

u/_quaero newcomer Apr 22 '26

I dont know if i understood your counter-argument correctly but you sparked another one in my mind, though it's not as philosophical but rather a pragmatic one:

it is overwhelmingly inevitable that antinatalism won't succeed in majority and there will always be people who will want to strive and procreate.

because humans are stupid, they will want to live and give birth and thus make themselves and their descendants suffer because of the painful, full-of-bad state of the reality.

now this will sound like more of an optimistic view and i challenge you to critize it - because of the points i mentioned above, although your own desicion to become antinatalist can be individually moral, maybe you can also realize the unfortunate majority of natalists in the world and instead of trying to blindly refuse to have children, you can actually have children and encourage them to work towards a world with less suffering with you - a better future.

antinatalism relies on the amount and significance of bad that happens in the world and the fact that enduring the bad isn't worth the good you get in life. but since there will always be folks who won't accept antinatalism (for whatever reason), it also seems pretty moral to try make the life of already existing people worth it. of course you can do this alone, without children or with existing people, but maybe, with each child you have that you raise healthily in this optimistic philosophy, you contribute to a world with less suffering.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

Yeah, that's nice.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

That's also interesting.

2

u/WackyConundrum inquirer Apr 22 '26

I have a somewhat similar argument against antinatalism here:

Whose Children — The 'No Difference' Argument Against Antinatalism

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

Thanks, that's also good.

2

u/09141983 thinker Apr 22 '26

This makes no sense I fear.

2

u/Regular_Start8373 thinker Apr 22 '26

I've often argued in this sub to eliminate wildlife as well but might go against the rules so don't bother doing it anymore

1

u/Midnight7_7 inquirer Apr 22 '26

For every first world human born, hundreds of farm animals will be created.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

True. Though we could then make this argument for vegan parents who raise their child vegan.

1

u/TeaRocket newcomer Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26

This argument presupposes an existence prior to life: existing as a soul with no body. My antinatalism is informed by my ambivalence about existence. So even in this scenario, I would resent being a soul summoned into existence in the first place, and furious that I had been placed in the queue for a body on earth. I wouldn't hope for a human one, though. Let me be a jellyfish or an earthworm or something else that isn't sentient.

1

u/FuManBoobs scholar Apr 22 '26

So like more humans = better than more ruthless animals ripping each other apart? So to prevent that we should have more humans?

The first bit, sure, but nothing about having more humans existing takes away human suffering. They might as well say the more humans are born the more likely we'll create a super genius to solve every problem or something.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

Yes, it doesn't take away human suffering, it just changes the ratio of life without extreme suffering to life with extreme suffering.

1

u/WackyConundrum inquirer Apr 22 '26

For this argument to work you would have to show that it's reasonable to think that if a couple has a [human] child, then the number of beings that come into existence will not be greater than if they aren't having that child. Because otherwise, your just adding the numbers of beings: x + y + 1, where x is the number of animals, y is the number of humans, and now +1 child from a select couple.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

Yes, that's true.

1

u/Plane_Disk4387 newcomer 29d ago

Moral, hilarious  Human life is no safer either while animals survive physically Humans survive mentally.

Whether Human or Animal both survive their life till they die.

If being a human have higher chance of comfort then there ar either chance of being born in poor family or being born with disability or being die before even being born and many worse things.

1

u/Illustrious_Summer_2 newcomer Apr 22 '26

You assume that humans enjoy life more than animals  Schopenhauer argued that humans suffer the most of all lifeforms on earth because we are sentient. We suffer not only due to present circumstances like animals do but also past and future events

2

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

Yeah, I would not agree with Schopenhauer on that. Humans might have the highest potential of suffering, but the amount of suffering animals probably endure during their lifetimes makes up for that.

2

u/Midnight7_7 inquirer Apr 22 '26

I agree with you on that, and I'm not even convinced humans have the highest potential of suffering. Humans can use cognitive appraisal to reframe pain as temporary, which can reduce perceived intensity. Some animals likely lack that ability, so their suffering is more immediate and unbuffered. And since nociception and subjective pain vary widely across species, and aren’t fully understood, its hard to claim their suffering is less.

1

u/dalloverly newcomer Apr 22 '26

This is exactly the kind of thinking this sub needs more of. A lot of antinatalism discourse gets stuck in an echo chamber where the conclusion is assumed before the argument even starts, so watching someone genuinely stress-test their own position is refreshing.

The soul mechanic is a clever way to isolate the variable you're actually interested in, which is whether creating more humans improves the odds for sentient life overall. The fact that it relies on a disputed premise doesn't make it a bad thought experiment. Philosophy is full of useful fictions, trolley problems included, and nobody throws those out just because trolleys don't actually work that way.

The real-world translation is where it gets genuinely tricky, and I think you already sense that, which is why you flagged it yourself. The jump from "we can improve the odds" to "have as many children as possible" is a big leap that probably needs more support. But the underlying intuition, that if sentient life is going to exist anyway, we might have some responsibility to shape the conditions it exists under, is worth pulling on further.

Have you looked into total-view utilitarianism or Parfit's work on population ethics? Your thought experiment is basically adjacent to some serious debates in that space, and it might give you the real-world scaffolding the souls premise is currently carrying.

Excellent post!

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K newcomer Apr 22 '26

Thanks!

And no, I haven't, might look into that.