The current population of Earth is 7.442 billion people. Assuming that roughly one third are of childbearing age, any conversation about anti-natalism is moot. Over 2 billion people are not going to collectively decide not to have children.

It’s a bit like saying what if trees stopped propagating, or flowers stopped making pollen.

I’m sure there are lots of people who “believe in” anti-natalism, and we are all free to believe what we want, but facts have more legs to stand on.

Honestly, I was hoping to read some observations on the state of our world with regard to a “don’t have children” argument.

Many scientists believe Earth cannot support more than 9-10 billion people. At 9–10 billion, there will not be enough fresh water or food to support all of us. Given current birth/death rates, we’ll hit that number around 2050.

In addition, many scientists believe we’re less than a century from Earth’s next mass extinction. Dr. Daniel Rothman, a professor at MIT’s Earth, Atmospheric, & Planetary Sciences has predicted that given the increasing amount of carbon and corresponding effect on the oceans, the next mass extinction is possible around 2100.

If I was 10 years younger, I might have some serious questions to ask myself. Do I want to bring a child into a world that is slated to hit max. population in 33 years? Do I want to have a child that will be 83 years old at the time the Earth begins the next mass extinction? Will we fix our mistakes fast enough to ensure that child won’t live through things I’d never want a child to live through?

Those are very real considerations, though I suspect few people think about them. For that matter, having the freedom to consider those options in the first place is a privilege of sorts. There are countries where 60% of women are raped and access to birth control doesn’t exist. They don’t get to consider those things. They get raped, they have a child. End of story.

But, to discuss not having children because life is hard? Because there’s more bad than good? Kind of blows my mind a little.

I was walking through the forest yesterday and saw several trees that suffered natural damage. One hit by lightening. Several taken down by beavers. One dying because of fungus growing all over it.

Have you read The Hidden Life of Trees — apparently trees communicate and have feelings. It’s an astounding read. Should all trees cease to exist because some (or most) of them have pain or suffer injury?

And who ever said that things must be “more good than bad” in order for existence to have merit in the first place?

If you made it to the bottom, thanks for reading. :)

Written by

Top writer. Featured in NYT, Forbes.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store