Antinatalism and Childfreedom: Where Selfishness is Selflessness

While the childfree lifestyle has been on the rise, I haven’t seen much of it being covered positively. There are of course the increased flexibility and more stable living circumstances that come with being single or in a childless relationship, which is a perspective that basically everyone, even parents, can recognize. Now, shift this perspective from the childless individual, probably a more selfish perspective according to most, to the would-be child, a more selfless one. What does the child who would have been gain if he or she does not exist? This piques my curiosity.

There are opinions on either side, however, I would like at least to deemphasize this in favor of objectives. For example, rather than the statement, “Life would be less fulfilling with no children to raise,” a more credible (counter)point would be, “An unborn child has avoided this insufferable event or circumstance by not having been alive to experience it.”

While we’re at it, suffering can be defined as:

The condition of one who suffers; the bearing of pain or distress

An instance of pain or distress

By using the perspective of suffering as it relates to being childfree, I basically am referring to antinatalism, a philosophy that assigns a negative value to birth.

The only concern I have with this is that the definition of suffering on its own can be subjective, as in subject to interpretation. Two people could be present at the same event, and one finds it enjoyable while the other deems it stressful. Because of examples like this, the antinatalism argument also can be subjective. Indeed, antinatalists believe that it is immoral to procreate, and morality of course is subjective. This argument by itself is reasonable considering that it is based on the truth that life cannot consent to being born.

In my opinion, suffering can be objective when it is physical or economical, and by this, I mean that any person could be placed in the circumstance with the same outcome and they are worse off in either manner for having experienced it directly. An example would be when a person gets a cold. They physically are impaired with a respiratory infection that causes them to miss work, school, etc., and depending on the severity, they have to consume finite resources, like money to buy medicine, that they would have used in other ways had they not had to get well in a reasonable time. Indeed, time is such a finite resource. While it is personal to each individual as to how much time lost equals suffering, if that also is tied to a loss of economic production, that time lost in part can become the basis of objective reasoning. It would be better to mainly use physical and economical criteria with time as an optional support because the concept of wasted time is abstractly subjective. This example appears to consider only the physical and economical well-being of the adult, however, this affects not only themselves but also their children if they have any and anyone else who is dependent on their well-being. The child of course directly suffers if it is him or her who has the cold. Rather than explain this from only a moral perspective, I also would consider the economics perspective. This is economic antinatalism.

I don’t want necessarily to explain that everyone shouldn’t have children. (However, depending on their circumstances, like if a person has a major, genetic illness that negatively would affect any of their own children, some should not.) Some people have to continue our species. I mostly want to consider economically the positives in light of any negatives, at times wrapped in dark comedy, which would serve as reinforcing reminders to those like myself who have made the decision to be childfree.