Anti-Natalism: The Bleak Philosophy That Life Isn’t Worth Beginning
Monday, October 6, 2025 This is for my therapist, Mike Lew.
David Benatar, the South African philosopher behind Better Never to Have Been (Wikipedia), argues that bringing new people into existence is always wrong.
His case is stark: life inevitably contains suffering, nonexistence contains none, therefore the kindest act is not to procreate.
It’s philosophy as prophylaxis: the only foolproof way to prevent human suffering is to prevent humans. In other words, it has all the nuanced thinking of a Trojan condom.
The Allure of the Asymmetry
At the center of his philosophy is the asymmetry between pleasure and pain.
Pain is always bad. Pleasure is only good if someone exists to experience it.
The unborn, conveniently, never complain about missing tiramisu. But if they’d been born, they might have stubbed a toe or lived through a war. Therefore, says Benatar, it’s always safer not to bring them into existence.
It has the elegance of geometry combined with all the warmth of an autopsy table.
Still, for some, it resonates.
The problem from my somewhat more sanguine point of view is that we humans obviously have a robust built-in negativity bias: one bad Yelp review sticks longer than ten compliments, and one heartbreak can overshadow a decade of steady companionship.
Anti-natalism just scales that enduring vulnerability to the species level.
The Erasure of Joy
My issue is that Benatar treats joy like an optional garnish.
Pain weighs against life, but joy barely counts for it. That’s not philosophy — that’s rigged accounting.
By this math, the laughter of a child, the astonishment of falling in love, or the absurdity of a late-night joke with friends are irrelevant blips.
He argued that people can endure unthinkable suffering if it is infused with meaning.
Modern psychology has backed him up: Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) showed that positive emotions are not trivial; they’re the actual fuel for resilience.
Without them, yes, life is unbearable. But the presence of joy doesn’t just balance suffering — it transforms it.
Other Voices in the Debate
Benatar isn’t alone in thinking life is more curse than gift. Shit-talking the human experiment has become fashionable.
Peter Wessel Zapffe (Wikipedia) said human consciousness evolved too far, leaving us painfully self-aware. His prescription: distraction — art, religion, Netflix.
Seana Shiffrin (ResearchGate) focused on consent: no one consents to being born, which makes procreation morally dicey.
Rivka Weinberg (Oxford University Press) argued that procreation is a risk-laden act, not always wrong, but not always permissible either.
Julio Cabrera (Wikipedia) saw procreation as manipulative: imposing life on someone without their permission.
Magnus Vinding (magnusvinding.com) emphasized suffering-focused ethics: we should prioritize reducing pain, though he stops short of Benatar’s extinction project.
Each offers a different shade of pessimism. Together, they form a chorus of sad puppies howling variations on the same whiny theme: life hurts, so maybe we shouldn’t make more of it (that was unkind, but intellectually necessary).
The Psychology Behind the Philosophy
Why does anti-natalism find such eager listeners? Part of its power is psychological.
Existential Dread: Life is unpredictable, often cruel, and always fatal. Anti-natalism gives a clean answer: don’t start. No one gets out of here alive.
Negativity Bias: Our brains weigh harm more than joy, so Benatar’s math feels intuitively correct. I tell my clients to grow an understanding and relationship with our (not their) inherent negative bias. It’s like the intentional flaw (because only G_d makes perfect things) in a silk Kashan rug. The rug still has beauty and purpose, because it has meaning.
Depression: In despair, the argument doesn’t feel abstract — it feels compellingly obvious. This is a philosophy which actually nurtures and nourishes despair and mental illness.
Moral Purity: There’s an appeal in believing you’ve solved suffering by refusing to procreate. It’s ethics as bleach: crisp, sterile, but inherently stifling and unlivable, pun very much intended.
Control: In a chaotic world, the idea of never create life feels neat, like closing the only loophole in the human mess.
A 2022 study even found correlations between anti-natalist beliefs and antagonistic personality traits (Meehan, Zeigler-Hill, & Shackelford, 2022).
Not proof of pathology, but a hint that the comfort of stark, uncompromising sad-sack logic appeals most to those already drawn to bleaker world views.
Where Anti-Natalism Falters in Epic Fashion
Nonexistence isn’t a State. '“Nobody” is not harmed or helped. “Nothing” cannot be improved.
Joy Matters. It isn’t frosting; it’s the yeast. Without it, life is devoid of meaning.
Life is Unpredictable. Some who endure horror still affirm life. The formula assumes we can pre-calculate meaning, which we can’t.
Consistency Cracks. If life is always a harm, shouldn’t death be better than survival? Benatar sidesteps this, but the the sign posts of his logic map direct him there.
It’s a Philosophy of Despair. A theory that only makes sense of the dark hours should be treated as a diagnostic symptom, not a dynamic solution.
In the Therapy Room
Anti-natalism often sneaks into therapy not as theory, but as lament. “I wish I’d never been born.” “Bringing kids into this world is cruel.” These are not syllogisms — they are the voice of pain.
The therapist’s role is not to argue metaphysics, but to honor the despair without endorsing its finality.
Often these declarations arise when a nervous system is flooded, when trauma or depression narrows life to suffering only.
The Work is to help someone widen their lens: to see that alongside the inevitability of pain, there may also be absurd laughter, fleeting beauty, a hand held in the dark.
Philosophy tells us that existence is tragic. Therapy shows us that tragedy can still be well-lived, and even well-loved. Anti-natalism reduces life to harm prevention; therapy insists on finding meaning in the harm that’s already here. I’ve made my choice on the side of life and meaning.
The Closing Casket
Anti-natalism is a philosophy with the curtains drawn tight, and the casket lid snapped shut. It promises to offer clarity, but provides no oxygen mask.
The truth is less tidy: life is suffering, yes, but also surprise. It is grief, but also grace. To reject existence entirely is to miss not just the pain, but the comedy, the absurdity, and the possibility of joy.
The unborn will never complain about missing a perfect tiramisu. But those of us who choose to still be here know that sometimes it’s worth the extra calories.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
Benatar, D. (2006). Better never to have been: The harm of coming into existence. Oxford University Press.
Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning (I. Lasch, Trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1959)
Meehan, A., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Shackelford, T. K. (2022). Dark personality traits and anti-natalist beliefs. Philosophical Psychology, 35(7), 1031–1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2031830
Nagel, T. (1971). The absurd. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(20), 716–727. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024717
Shiffrin, S. V. (1999). Wrongful life, procreative responsibility, and the significance of harm. Legal Theory, 5(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325299052016
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320
Weinberg, R. (2015). The risk of a lifetime: How, when, and why procreation may be permissible. Oxford University Press.
Zapffe, P. W. (1933). The Last Messiah. Oslo: Janus.