September 2, 2025

Sino-Tibetan depiction of
Lohan (十八羅漢)

Tuesday:
My views on Antinatalism – September 2, 2025

Is life worth living? Or is perhaps life worth living but not starting? These are some of the questions that proponents of the philosophy of "Antinatalism" deal with. First and foremost: what does antinatalism mean? Anti is a prefix that essentially means to oppose something: it is Greek in origin and means to oppose. Natal is a Latin word that describes someone's birth or really to birth, which if you put 2 and 2 together you would understand that anti-natalism means to oppose having children, and of course ism is just the suffix describing a distinctive practice or school of thought, such in this case the philosophy of opposing creating more life. There are a couple of reasons as to why some people claim to be of this persuasion, and the most common reason seems to stem from the truth that life, life in the material domain, is mostly suffering, or rather it is mostly living through suffering: suffering leads to suffering which leads to more suffering. In a very cosmic sense life is suffering, an insight that the great Buddha provided and that many other men of ascendant rank have provided in observation as well. Indeed, the idea of suffering as a central part of life is not only a Buddhist concept; it exists in all great metaphysical traditions, but Buddhism in particular has been able to clearly describe this feature of life, and the Buddha provided an example as to how one should go about in life to minimize suffering, for he recognized that there was no inherit value in suffering alone; that suffering in a very cosmic sense was profoundly connected to how men lived their lives in the material domain and that even if men tried to escape from the celestial order, all of their attempts have in the end failed. In antinatalism however, suffering is seen as a central feature of life, but it seems that this philosophy focuses only on suffering and their rather mechanical and simple conclusion is this: if you didn't exist then there would be no suffering, but there would also be no well being; but if you do exist in life, there would be well being but also suffering, and since life is inherently more painful than anything else, life is therefore not worth starting, but life is also not worth ending if you have some kind of quality of life. Essentially, the antinatalist position is that life is always more suffering than good, and because life is this way and because there is no way to escape the fate of suffering, then nonexistence is preferable to existence. Antinatalism is clearly a materialist philosophy: that is to say that the proponents of antinatalism don't consider anything that goes beyond the material; antinatalists are merely interested in and preoccupation by man's material circumstances and they recognize no other purpose for man in the universe; essentially antinatalism can be said to be not only a purely material philosophy but also a worship in the spiritual sense of the entropy, of nihilism, even though the often atheist proponents of antinatalism likely will refuse to recognize this about themselves. It seems to me that in our day one of the most advanced forms the thrill of the entropy takes is the form of antinatalism. While most proponents of antinatalism are atheists, there are however some religious sects that are at least in part antinatalist: in particular there seems to be a certain tendency in some Christian schools of thought to discourage people from having children, since those children may be destined to feel the wrath of the creators, Jehovah's, divine vengeance, and again the justification is that those unborn children are better off in nonexistence. While I can see the moral legs on which both the spiritual and the material aspects of this philosophy stands firmly on the ground with, I also recognize the shared simplicity of this philosophy and lack of real insight: yes life is inherently painful, but that is the essence of life, the essence of being alive, and in our world and according to the laws of the creator, this is the way that life is constituted: there are no lives lived, no breaths taken, no risks taken, and no apologies given in our world that does not require struggle, both materially and spiritually; for our world is chaotic and the only true form that can be mastered in this world is the form that requires struggle and heroism, for without that there would be not valleys, not texture, no beauty, and no meaning; that would be a world of nonexistence, of the reign of the forces of destruction and entropy, a world void of light and without true form, simply nothing, a world not true to the meaning of that word.

    Life is not easy, and indeed life was never easy, but such is the condition of life and of the universe: everything that is good, everything that possess the quality of beauty and of a soul, transcended beyond the reign of destruction and death, they gave our world its true form and to be alive is indeed to give the universe its true form, it is not only to be a part of the intentions of the creator, it is also to be a part of that true form while defining that true form of the universe. Indeed, without the world there would surely be no suffering, but without the world there would also be no reason to care, and no reason to live or to embrace the philosophy of antinatalism, for in the end life wasn't worth it according to antinatalism and if life wasn't worth it, then the universe was wrong, the creator was wrong and you had no place in this world, for the world has no reason to be in the first place. The only thing that matters is precisely nothing, the anti-world, the thrill of the entropy. Can a life or any sacred aspect of the universe be reduced to a station void of meaning? Can man completely separate himself from the universe? Isn't this concept inherently contradictory to the principles of both antinatalism and nihilism? How is it that man does not matter and his place in the universe is merely a product of the cosmic flux, yet at the same time man is so important that he should be given an entire philosophy that proclaims how bad the universe is and how man deserves special treatment by the universe? Isn't it a given then, that man should suffer for that is the essence of the universe and of life? Why should someone that has fallen for the thrill of the entropy care what happens to man? Why is it that suffering matters but nothing else matters, not the things that the dynamic between suffering the good creates? What the antinatalist does is to proclaim the inherently evil nature of the universe and of life itself without seeing why life and anything that isn't merely a cosmic soup is inherently apart and sacred from the cosmic flux. If life is evil then it would make sense for a man to refuse to put another life into existence, but it would not make sense for that man to go on living, unless there were some aspect of life that he refused to leave behind, even if that aspect is suffering and fear itself. Surely the antinatalist recognizes the inherent value in his own life, even if that inherent value is merely material in nature?

Tibetan Depiction of Kurukulla (डाकिनी)
as Dakini

    In the end, antinatalism is a self-defeating philosophy, it is an attempt, a failed attempt, to give into the serpent's thrill of the entropy: it is an attempt to welcome and to worship the destruction not only of oneself, but of the world, and that is very much symbolized in the act of refusing to put children into the world, not for the reason of avoiding suffering but for the reason of putting the world into flames, to make the world and the circumstances of the world pay for your failures and your refusal to accept the world as it is and to better yourself. In the absence of beauty, the soul dies and this is very much the case with the antinatalist: his soul has died and the void left behind is dark and taunting. Indeed, antinatalism is quite the opposite of working towards the benefit of all sentient life, the Bodhicitta; it is the attempt to embrace the destruction of all sentient life, and this impulse has nothing to do with attempting to avoid suffering. So, what are my final thoughts on antinatalism? I think that it is quite acceptable and even moral for a man to refuse to procreate, if he is attempting to avoid suffering both for himself and his potential prodigy, but I do not think that the antinatalist assertion is true nor do I think that it is based on morality, for, as I've explained previously, antinatalism contradicts itself: if life was inherently bad and evil then it would not make sense to go on in life and indeed it would not make sense to love certain aspects of life; only hatred of all aspects of life would be sufficient if a man is true to antinatalism.

    As usual I want to call on every far-seeing man to embrace celibacy and moral purity. Yes, if you believe that life is too much to bear and that your prodigy will suffer and will not be saved from the wrath, then I think you are quite right in refusing to procreate, but you may not hold on to one part of life and reject some other part of life, for that would make you a hypocrite.

Reginald Drax – September 2, 2025.