We exist because of the primitive, reckless desire to have sex. Control yourselves, and keep it in your pants. You don’t know the damage you’re doing to those who don’t exist.
We Exist
Published
We exist because of the primitive, reckless desire to have sex. Control yourselves, and keep it in your pants. You don’t know the damage you’re doing to those who don’t exist.
Sisyphus Shrugged 
Procreation is the only factual reason why we are here. Any other potential purpose for human beings is a matter of opinion. And some of those opinions, on analysis, can seem very strange even when we are brought up with them as if they too were fact. The survival of our genes through progeny is probably our sole purpose and the sole purpose of the species as a whole. Just like animals or bacteria. So, it might seem counter to our nature and nature itself to oppose the process of passing genes on and expanding the species further.
But, when there are too many wolves and too few deer, the wolves begin to starve. Their numbers thin out. Their dominance of their environment is reigned in by Nature. Balance is restored.
Humanity has reached such a dominant position and continues to breed to a point where the continuation much of the species is now actually threatened by the unfettered passing on of human genes. And the consumerist consequences that such species expansion will inevitably bring.
If there are too many wolves Nature kills a few off to restore environmental equilibrium. Wolves are intelligent, social creatures. Just like humans. And humans, just like wolves, cannot afford to overbreed and over consume.
The planet is not prepared to O.D. on us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, evolution favors reproduction. That’s how natural selection works. But evolution also gave us aggression, tribalism, and countless other instincts that we routinely judge and restrain for ethical reasons. “It’s natural” doesn’t automatically make it morally justified.
My objection isn’t simply that there are too many humans or that the planet has finite resources. Even if the population were half what it is today, I’d still question the ethics of creating a person who cannot consent to being brought into existence and who is guaranteed to experience some degree of suffering, loss, and ultimately death.
Nature doesn’t have moral authority. It’s indifferent. Humans have the capacity to reflect on our instincts instead of blindly following them. We don’t have to reproduce simply because our genes “want” us to.
So while I agree that unchecked consumption and population growth create ecological problems, my position is broader than environmentalism. Antinatalism is an ethical argument about the morality of creating new people, not just a response to overpopulation.
LikeLike