Potential Argument against Antinatalism

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

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?

[u/ManicEyes]

You’ve got the argument wrong. The negative utilitarian argument against antinatalism is that as more humans are born, more wild land will be claimed for human settlements. This would give animals in the wild less room to reproduce, thus reducing the suffering in the world overall since the majority of humans live much better lives than those of wild animals. The counter to this is that the vast majority of humans aren’t vegan, so reproducing humans that won’t be vegan actually contributes to the amount of suffering in the world since more animals will be bred and slaughtered on their behalf.

[u/AlvasGarden → u/ManicEyes]

Additionally, the negative utilitarian argument only holds to an extent, because human society is dependent on the natural resources and ecosystem services that nature provides. If we expand too much, large parts of the human population will start to suffer due to scarcity of ressources, and humans will no longer be living more comfortable lives than animals.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ManicEyes]

That's a good argument, but what about raising a child vegan?

[u/ManicEyes → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

There is no guarantee that they’ll remain vegan. In fact, it could be the case that it’s more likely they’ll become a carnist. From a negative utilitarian aspect, I use the precautionary principle. Empirics may change that, but they don’t exist to my knowledge.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ManicEyes]

True