That’s a well-written argument but I maintain that antinatalism is a form of antihumanism since it leads to the extinction of the human race. It is steeped in pessimism about people’s capability to mitigate their own suffering.

Declining to bet on behalf of your progeny also leaves them bereft of the chance to live a fulfilled life. I will 100% support everyone’s individual decision to remain child-free but antinatalism isn’t that.

And I’d much rather support euthanasia (the literal kind, not the crime committed e.g. by the Nazis) or suicide for those who make an autonomous decision against life. But rejecting life ab initio (or rather a priori) seems like the worst position in this debate to me.

He wasn’t there to be recorded. He was there to move fast and break things.

Right, that’s the one. Same word in my mother tongue.

Provenience, but yeah.

Speak for yourself. I’m OK.

That’s the problem with this notion, isn’t it? That idea that humans are no good and that we shouldn’t exist. In the extreme you get movements like antinatalism that have given up all hope for humanity and take on a downright anti-human stance. I happen to think that’s an unhealthy way of seeing things.