Why Childfree Living May Become the Rational Choice in an Era of Economic Instability, Overpopulation, and AI‑Driven Job Insecurity

The conditions of the world seem to have gotten much worse, and I am talking about e.g. insecure jobs due to e.g. AI and other reasons, housing unaffordability and other cost of living issues, rising aggression and polarisation, etc. So even if we ignore morality, not having children directly addresses all those problems e.g. if you don't have children then you only have one mouth to feed (your own), which is much better if your boss fires you. If you have no kids, you don't need to worry as much about housing unaffordability because you do not need a huge house. You can live in a sharehouse, a small microapartment, live with your parents, live in a car, etc. By not having a child, you can work more, and by not having a baby, your expenses go down so you can save and invest more. 

Looking at it purely from a practical, monetary perspective, having no children wins. And this I think is a strong contributor to the current TFR decline trend we are seeing worldwide e.g. recent news highlights that birth rates are collapsing in India and Phillipines. There seems to be opt-out cultures emerging everywhere eg NGSB/NBSB in Phillipines, solo-maxxing in the West, Tang Ping and Bai Lan in China, Sampo in South Korea, and Herbivore/Satori in Japan. 

These trends should be accelerated. Purely from a biophysical or environmental perspective, we have severe overpopulation. The carrying capacity of the planet is 2.5 billion and the only reason why we have 8 billion now is due to fossil fuel. As fossil fuels quickly deplete and EROI rises due to shale oil depleting as well as peak phosphorus, this will create a huge increase in cost of living which I am sure will price people out of procreation and birth rate will collapse even faster. This is when antinatalism will be more and more important and movements that provide a ideological basis and identity for low-throughput and frugal living will be necessary because the old life script of buying a McMansion, SUV, and having multiple kids will simply be too expensive and risky. The material conditions for 2026 do not support a 1950s lifestyle, so we need to evolve. We need to become frugal and hyperautonomous, flexible, and mobile. We need to do these if we are to survival and thrive in the near future when cost of living rises and jobs become more and more precarious due to AI.

Stop Having Kids Billboard in El Paso, Texas

It is really positive seeing videos of the Stop Having Kids billboard in El Paso, Texas. Hopefully those who drive by will be reminded of antinatalism and the benefits of not having kids. This was something that I contributed to and I hope to contribute financially to more initiatives like this.

Work | Buy | Consume | Reproduce | Die

Might Makes Right, Darwinism, and the Double Harm from Procreation

The argument for antinatalism is that having kids increases suffering. The world is filled with exploitation and suffering. The lion eats the antelope, humans eat meat, children are being raped, etc.

One argument given against antinatalism is that suffering is just nature, which I agree with, but this is more of an argument for antinatalism rather than against it. Suffering indeed is part of nature. Most suffering I think occurs due to exploitation. Life evolved to exploit others. When there is a mutation in a living being that increases its ability to exploit another weaker living being for personal gain, it increases the probability of survival, which means that this gene is more likely to be passed down. As such, exploitation is written in our DNA. Looking at it this way, the solution to reduce exploitation and suffering is to prevent DNA replication.

 

Is suffering objectively good or bad?

I'm not saying suffering is necessarily bad or good. I just personally dislike it. For example, if someone has a child, I would dislike it if he is raped by a paedophile, which could happen. Some people may argue that there is nothing wrong with a child suffering because he is being raped by a paedophile. That's just their preference. But because I dislike suffering, I think it's safer if living beings do not exist because existence is the catalyst for suffering.

Imagine if you have a child and he is raped and if the paedophile is an untouchable billionaire who then asks you to justify why the suffering of your child is bad. What would you say? This example illustrates how nature, Darwinism, and "might makes right" creates a world filled with suffering and exploitation. I would not want to bring a child into such a world.

I believe in cultural relativism. Morality depends on each individual and can change depending on who you ask. However, this is not an outcome I like. Think of the example I gave before. What if a very powerful politically connected billionaire rapes your child? There is nothing you can do because there is no objective morality and because "might makes right." So because "might makes right" and because there is no objective morality, any life exposed to this reality has to deal with these risks. If I don't have a child, he or she cannot be raped. He or she cannot grow up to become a rapist.

I do believe we live in a "dog eat dog" world, a hierarchy with the billionaires at the top exploiting the millionaires in the middle exploiting everyone else at the bottom. This is the nature of reality and the reality of nature.

 

The double harm from procreation

Another benefit of not having kids is that kids are expensive, which means that if you don't have kids, you become richer, which makes you more powerful, which makes you better off in a "might makes right" world. Because of the cost of having kids, you will literally become weaker by having kids because money is power. The less money you have, the more you will be exploited by those above you in the hierarchy.

When you have a child, you create yet another worker whom those at the top of the hierarchy can exploit, and because you have to pay so much money to look after your child, you yourself become less resilient to exploitation from those above you in the hierarchy, so there is a "double harm" from procreation. Your child starts from nothing and needs to work his way up the hierarchy and be exploited along the way while you drop many levels down the hierarchy because of the decrease in net worth associated with having a child.

Why bring a child into a Darwinian world?

My Experience with a Vasectomy

About a week ago, I had a vasectomy, and I am very glad I have done this. I want to share my experience with others as it may help others out there thinking of getting a vasectomy.

Find a reputable doctor

Before getting a vasectomy, ask others who have had a vasectomy which doctors they recommend. Look for a reputable doctor. In Australia, I recommend Dr Snip, but if you are elsewhere in the world, check out the Childfree Friendly Doctors List. 

Shaving your balls

The first difficulty of vasectomy is shaving your balls and penis. Basically when you get a vasectomy, the doctor needs to be able to see what they are doing, so they will normally ask you to shave your balls and penis beforehand. When I learned about this, it turned me off getting a vasectomy or at least it provided me with an excuse to delay it. I had a lot of public hair on my balls, so the thought of shaving it filled me with fear. It didn't want to cut myself down there.

Before booking the vasectomy appointment, over many months, I practised shaving my balls in the shower. Over time, I got used to shaving my balls after so much practice. My balls became quite smooth over time as was my penis. The key to shaving your private parts is to use a shaver with many blades on it and to also do it in the shower when the surface of the scrotum is slightly wet but not too wet. A bit of moisture helps make shaving your balls much easier. Also you start from the base of the penis and work your way down the balls. This makes it easier to shave.

Book the vasectomy and distract yourself

After you are confident with how to shave your balls, book the vasectomy and then don't think too much about it. Once it is booked, then the hard decision of whether to do it or not is gone. You are just following a process now. You are no longer proactive but reactive.

On the day of my vasectomy, I took the entire day off from work because I didn't want the hassle of juggling work and vasectomy. I wanted to keep the day as free from stress as possible.

After the shower, I had some brunch. To distract myself, I watched a lot of Netflix throughout the day. Before I knew it, it was time for my vasectomy, so had a shower, got dressed and drove to the medical centre. 

Was the vasectomy painful?

The procedure was not too bad. There is a little bit of pain at the start when they inject the anaesthetic. There is about ten seconds of pain as the anaesthetic goes in, but after that it was fine. It reminds me of when I got my wisdom teeth removed back when I was a teenager. The only pain was when the orthodontist injects the anaesthetic into your gums, but after that there is no pain, but there is a weird feeling because you are awake and see the orthodontist drilling and pulling things out of your teeth, so it is scary. With a vasectomy, it is similar. You don't feel much but you know that they are working on your privates, and there is something unsettling about that.

I was able to drive back home. The doctor told me to take ibuprofen for the pain and if that doesn't work to also take paracetamol.

Recovering after a vasectomy

My balls felt quite sore and sensitive right after the vasectomy, so I was sure to take my ibuprofen and paracetamol. Over time, this soreness started to wane. After one week later, the soreness was almost gone and I was confident enough to masturbate again.

Generally speaking, right after the vasectomy, you should take it easy. Don't do any strenuous exercise. Also consider sleeping on your back for a few nights as sleeping on your sides means that your balls are pressed in between your legs. In my opinion, if you're not used to sleeping on your back, sleep with two pillows. Put one pillow under your head and the other on one of the sides of your head, right up to your ear. Usually when you're used to sleeping on your side, you're used to having a pillow on your ear.

Why get a vasectomy?

A vasectomy is a relatively simple and cheap way for a man to sterilise himself so that he cannot have a baby. There is a little bit of pain involved in getting a vasectomy, but it is quite small compared to other operations. 

The cost of a vasectomy varies by cities and countries, but after government subsidies, I paid about 500 AUD (about 373 USD). This is a small price to pay compared to the cost of raising a child, which by some estimates is as much as $1 million.

Many of those who get vasectomies already have children and do not want anymore. Perhaps they realise how difficult it is to have kids and don't want anymore. If a heterosexual couple does not want kids, a vasectomy makes sense. Female sterilisation (aka the tubal ligation) is a much more complicated and invasive procedure. Condoms do work, but they are not foolproof. All it takes is a condom bursting and you suddenly have a baby.

There are also many single and childfree men who are deciding to have vasectomies e.g. they are concerned about climate change and burdening the planet with more babies. Some men are wealthy and are worried that their sperm may be stolen by women who are hungry for child support payments from them.

For me, it is a combination of all these arguments. I am less worried about the cost of children because I am in my mid-thirties and have a net worth of about $1.9 million now, so I think I can afford a child or two. I do worry sometimes about being targeted by women wanting child support payments, but I think this is a lower risk because even though I am almost a multimillionaire, most of the wealth is in intangible and invisible assets e.g. ETFs and cryptocurrency. I don't own any mansions or luxury cars, so I don't look rich. My main motivation for getting a vasectomy relates to the environment and animal welfare.

Humans cause a lot of destruction on the planet, polluting the oceans with plastic and filling the air with carbon dioxide. Furthermore, one billion animals are slaughtered every week just to feed humanity. 

Not having kids has an exponential effect. If I don't have a child, not only does my child not pollute the earth or cause thousands of animals to be slaughtered, but so too my grandchild cannot pollute or slaughter others. My grandchild is likely to have kids as well, so my great-grandchildren also cannot harm others because they won't exist. If you get a vasectomy, the impact will be exponential. 

Many people will claim that there is no such thing as morality or right or wrong in this world and therefore they are free to do as they please whether it is killing animals or polluting the planet or, if we take their logic a further step, rape children.

However, this lack of justice or morality in the world is another strong argument for not having children. Without any objective morality, there is no accountability on anyone to do anything right. As such, people engage in behaviour that cause others to suffer. As a result, new life created is at risk of suffering or is at risk of causing suffering. If we dislike suffering (which I do) then it makes no sense to have kids.

My life after a vasectomy

Getting a vasectomy has taken a huge weight off my shoulders. All the harm that my descendants would have caused has been prevented. I am also much more financially secure and can afford a higher standard of living in the future. I can also have sex with women without any fear of pregnancy. It has been a week since I've gotten my vasectomy, but I haven't told too many people. In fact, I haven't told any of my family members as they are somewhat conservative and may disapprove, but I do plan on bringing up the topic at some point. I am going to make an effort to talk to as many people as possible about the vasectomy so that I can possibly encourage others to also get vasectomies. I will try to encourage other men to get vasectomies, and I will also try to encourage women to encourage their husbands or boyfriends into getting vasectomies.

Is Plastic Accelerating Population Decline?

Global fertility rate is currently declining and has been doing so since the 1960s. As an antinatalist who thinks that population reduction is necessary to reduce pain and suffering in the world, I am keen on trying to understanding why this is the case because it suggests that whatever society is doing now is working.

One of the explanations for global fertility decline is rising female equality, contraception, etc as well as economic development, which puts more work demand on young couples.

However, another potential cause of fertility decline is plastic e.g. microplastics, endocrine-disrupting chemicals etc that bioaccumulate into soil and groundwater and make their way into the food chain by building up in fish, animals, and people.

This suggests that one of the ways that antinatalists can promote population decline is to knowingly and directly harm others via plastic pollution to achieve their means. However, the whole purpose of antinatalism is to reduce suffering in the most humane way possible i.e. by not reproducing. 

What is difficult is that most of us will go on to cause extreme suffering on others. For example, if you free a lion from a cage and let it walk the streets, it may eat someone. Likewise, if you let a human do whatever it likes, it will most likely harm others e.g. by eating meat.

Regardless of the tricky ethical question it poses, it's interesting that humanity may already be making itself extinct through its own action, through its environemally destructive behaviour.

Would Decreasing Interest Rates Decrease Fertility Rates?

Lower interest rates increases the value of stocks and property because the future stream of dividends or rental income is discounted with a lower discount rate. As a result, the value of stocks or property rises as interest rates go down.

However, the same would apply to liabilities and expenses (rather than assets and income). Having a kid is a liability. You calculate the net present value of the child by discounting future steams of expenses. If interest rates go down, discount rate goes down, and value of the liability of the child rises. Higher cost of children means you have fewer children according to the law of demand.

The empirical data seems to back this up. Interest rates were low during WW2 and then rose until the 1970s. This coincided with the post-war baby boom. Global fertility collapsed from 1970s right as interest rates went down.

Image Source:

https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/2019-Revision-%E2%80%93-World-Population-Growth-1700-2100.png?itok=qgGAErDm

https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2015/12/17/Photos/NS/MW-EB494_chart1_20151217084102_NS.png?uuid=d056db94-a4c3-11e5-9638-0015c588e0f6

The Empowerment Strategy to Reduce Fertility Rate

Reducing fertility can be achieved through draconian policies such as forced abortions found in the One Child Policy or under policies implemented by Nazi Germany. However, the problem with these policies is that they cause suffering and are generally not popular today. 

However, empowering women has been found to work ie educating women so they can be educated and have independence and autonomy and to have family planning clinics allowing the woman to have contraceptives and abortions. These can be implemented through government policy. 

Another way fertility can be reduced is through empowering children. Basically this means giving children what they want, giving them safety and education. For example, in the past child labour was legal which meant that children suffered, but it also meant parents were able to make money by having children because they can put their kids to work to earn money for themselves. Laws that banned child labour effectively made having kids more expensive and so people had fewer kids. Another example of child empowerment are regulations on childcare. In some countries there are safety laws on childcares requiring them to be staffed by suitably qualified people or to have certain health and safety standards. This raised the price of these childcares thereby making having kids more expensive but the result is that kids have better childcares. The same applies with schools as well as things like child seats in cars. There have been studies done that show that higher child car seat requirements reduce fertility rate. This is a win-win because fertility drops which reduces suffering but also the children experience more safety in cars. 

Another area where "empowerment" may apply is for animals. Efilists are concerned about animal suffering and rightly so as animals suffer considerably especially in wildlife. However, the Calhoun rat experiment shows that if you give a population of mice infinite food then over time the population will dwindle. Another famous experiment is the rat level experiment that shows that when rats press a lever and are rewarded and become addicted to that reward then they will continually press that level even if it means they forego reproductive opportunities. 

Empowerment even applies to old people. If you make old age more pleasant eg give good healthcare, then many people may be happy to grow old and have the government help them rather than their children. Government spending on welfare for the old eg pensions also help give the old a better lifestyle with less suffering. However, a consequence of all this is also that more government spending on the old means more taxes on the young in order to pay for the old which means that prospective parents will need to work even more. Money that goes to old people via the tax system is money that is likely diverted away from young people who would otherwise have used that money to have a baby. 

My main point is that there seems to be a pattern here that "empowerment" tends to reduce fertility rate. This is important because "empowerment" is an easy sell. Why not educate women? Why not make childcares safer? Why not feed animals? By focusing on empowerment, you give immediate relief from suffering, you give beings what they want, and the result is less procreation, which leads to long term reductions in suffering. 

Living with Parents for Financial Success

I will admit that I have a personal bias with this blog post because I do indeed live with my parents in order to save money. I pay my parents approximately $300 per month. I consider this to be a win-win situation as my parents get some money to help pay the bills while I get a roof over my head for very little cost. This allows me to invest more money into shares, ETFs, property, etc.

In my opinion, living with your parents helps considerably with financial success. Many people focus on small expenses when trying to live frugally e.g. they will stop buying $5 coffee each day, which will save $1300 per year. But if you don't move out of the family home, you will save about $25,000 per year (whether you rent or buy your own place).

In the Economic Explained video below on YouTube where there is a discussion about a K-shaped COVID-19 recovery, the economic benefits of living with your parents is highlighted towards the end of the video (starts at 15:20):

    

This video is interesting because it discusses lifestyle inflation, but it also discusses how most people in Western culture aspire to a three bedroom house, two cars, and travelling every year. Basically Western culture aspires to a nuclear family lifestyle. 

The nuclear family is the ultimate consumerist status symbol. 

The nuclear family is much more expensive and wasteful than most other consumerist status symbols that are demonised e.g. the $5 per day coffee or even Ferraris. Moving out of home costs about $25k per year, but you can rent or buy a Ferrari on finance for less than this.

Most people say that moving out from the family home is natural and that everyone does it, but the video highlights this is not true. Cultures in China, Korea, and Singapore live in multigenerational family arrnagement and have the highest savings rates in the world. Adults live with grandparents and their kids. There is division of labour and in-built childcare, which allows for fast wealth building.

Living with your family does not need to be a parasitic relationship but one where you contribute to the family. You can help to pay your parents' bills so that you have a win-win arrangement.

Cultural bias against living with parents

Within Western culture there is a considerable bias for the nuclear family arrangement and against a multigenerational or extended family arrangement. Anyone over 25 (especially men) who still live with their parents are considered losers, but this in my opinion, is an unfair assumption that goes against economic logic. 

An example of this cultural bias against the extended family can be seen with "household wealth" calculation. Western culture views a nuclear family to be a proper household but multigeneral households are not. For example, I live with my parents, but if someone asked me for my net worth, people would not expect me to aggregate my net worth with my parents' net worth as well. However, when someone is living with his spouse, they often aggregate not just their own wealth but the wealth of their spouse as well. 

The benefit of living with your parents is that you can split costs e.g. heating costs. You can benefit from splitting costs living in a nuclear family as well, but the gains will not be as great because you are splitting costs with only one other person (assuming they work and are not staying at home doing domestic duties). Another problem with the nuclear family is the threat of divorce. If you live with a spouse, even if you're not married (due to common law marriage), there is a risk of divorce. There is a probability of about 40% that you will be divorced. However, if you live with your parents, there is zero probability of divorce and having your assets seized by the courts.

Multigenerational and childfree living

To conclude, living with parents in multigenerational living arrnagements is a great way to get ahead financially. You are able to build wealth up faster by lowering expenses. In my opinion, living with your parents is not enough. To really build your wealth, you should not just live with your parents but also not have children i.e. become childfree. The benefit of the multigenerational household is being able to split costs e.g. the cost of heating is divided by everyone in the household. However, not everyone in the household may contribute. If you have a baby, the baby will not obviously not contribute to the cost of the household. As such, it is best to not have any children and live childfree. This is not a problem for me because I am an antinatalist and believe that is immoral to have children because it increases suffering. However, regardless of my philosophical views, economically it makes sense to not just live with parents but also live childfree.

Are Boomers to Blame for Fertility Rate and Climate Change?

The future has many challenges, one of which is climate change. Climate change is caused by many factors, but one that I will focus on now is global population. At almost 8 billion there are quite simply too many people on this earth. Each one emits a certain amount of carbon dioxide simply by living a normal life e.g. driving a car spews carbon dioxide from exhaust and eating meat wastes a significant amount of energy to keep cows and pig alive only to kill them.

As such, policies that reduce population growth (antinatalist policies) are better for the environment. When people think of antinatalist policies, one that comes to mind is China's One Child Policy, which was draconian. It featured forced sterilization, forced abortion, and government birth permits. However, there are ways of reducing fertility rate without resorting to draconian measures that cause suffering. In fact, most of the world has seen its fertility rate fall. Back in the 1960s, global fertility rate was about 5 babies per woman. Today is approximately 2.5 babies per woman. Once it gets to 2.1 babies per woman (i.e. replacement rate) then this means global population will cease to grow, which is a huge win for the environment.

But why did the world ex-China experience a fall in fertility rate without resorting to draconian measures? Many say it is urbanisation, female education, and availability of contraception. Urbanisation as opposed to rural living transforms babies from a productive asset that can work on the family work into a liability and recreational expense. Female education gives women other options rather than staying home and looking after children. It allows women to be productive rather than reproductive. Availability of contraception allows people to enjoy sex without the side-effect of having children.

However, there are two other factors that I believe helped to reduce fertility rate: housing unaffordability and welfare for the old. The term "greedy boomers" comes to mind because these policies help older people. High house prices help the old who purchased homes in the past and were able to gain wealth through the rise in house prices, and older people vote for welfare due to self-interest e.g. age pensions as well as many subsidies for medicines, etc.

Housing unaffordaibility, in my opinion, reduces fertility because it reduces the wealth of young people. It is important to make the distinction between wealth and income. Less wealth reduces fertility rate, but less income increases fertility rate. You need wealth (assets minus liabilities) in order to afford to raise children. However, the lower your income, the less money you lose if you stay home to take care of a child. Young people are more fertile and more likely to have children vs old people. However, housing unaffordability means many young people pay more money to buy a home or rent a home. If a young person rents a home, high house prices means they pay more rent assuming reasonably stable rental yield (i.e. rents rise as house prices rise). If a young person buys a home, if it is more expensive, they lose more money by living in the property because they miss out on renting it out and earning rental income. Whether you buy or rent, high house prices cause your wealth to be lower than what it would be if housing was affordable. This results in people deferring having children. Deferral of having children reduces the total number of children a woman can have, which reduces carbon emissions.

Welfare for the old works to reduce fertility rate in two ways. Firstly, in order for the old to receive welfare, more taxes need to be applied on the young in order to fund pensions, subsidised hospitals and age care homes, etc. More taxes on the young reduces their wealth, which reduces fertility rate, which helps the environment. Another way welfare for the old helps to reduce fertility rate is that it gives people the confidence that they will be looked after by their government when they are older, which means they do not need to have children and expect these children look after them. In fact, if these children will grow up in a world where they need to work hard in order to afford a place to live and in order to pay taxes that will be redistributed to the old, they won't have time to look after their parents because they are too busy working.

Both these two factors exhibit "virtuous cycle" properties e.g. for housing unaffordaibility, young people are forced to delay childbirth and work very hard in order to afford to get enough wealth to feel like they can afford children. Usually couples start to feel confident in having children once they save enough deposit or downpayment to get a mortgage from the bank to buy a home, but once they do, they now have an incentive to want that house to go up in value, which means they will vote for policies that cause more housing unaffordability, which puts more pressure on those even younger. For example, having been scrimping and saving under heavy taxes to fund boomers, millenials are now starting to buy homes in their thirties. They will want these house prices to go up and they will vote for policies such as tax benefits for housing. However, because this results in soaring house prices, this means that Gen Z will need to save up even more to get a mortgage, so they may need to work hard until they are in their 40s, and once Gen Z purchase as house, they too will vote for policies that cause housing unaffordaibility, which causes Gen A to wait until they are in their 50s to buy a house, and so on in a virtuous cycle that reduces fertility rate, carbon emissions, and saves the environment.

The same "virtuous cycle" is found in welfare for the old. Old people claim they are old, frail and need to be looked after, and they vote for policies that redistribute wealth from the young to the old. This puts pressure on the young who need to work harder in the face of high cost of housing and high taxes in order to get the wealth needed to have children. As a result, the young defer having children, but once the young get old, they have an incentive to keep the welfare going, so they will vote for policies that help the old, which puts more pressure on the young. Furthermore, as fertility rate drops, there are fewer and fewer young people who can vote, which means in a democracy, older people will continue to grow in political power and grab more money from the public purse, meaning the young are taxed even more, which means lower wealth, lower fertility rate, and lower carbon emissions.

In conclusion, "greedy boomers" help the environment by contributing greatly to global human population decline. Once millenials become the next boomers, we can expect the same behaviour and the same outcome, which is falling fertility rate, falling carbon emissions, and a better environment.

Do Women or Men Have More Impact on Fertility Rate?

I am a man in my thirties. I've decided I never want children. Whenever I go on dates I am keen to bring this up. The reason why I will not have children is because I am an antinatalist and believe more population growth increases suffering, not only because new life can suffer but also because new life causes suffering on other living beings. Something I've always wondered is whether a man who does not have children, ie a childfree man, makes any difference to the total fertility rate or whether it is women deciding to have no children or fewer children that is the primary cause of global drop in fertility rate.

Imagine a room with two men and two women. If all two women refuse to have children, fertility rate is zero. There can be no children without women. However, you might think that a woman needs a man in order to have children, but with fertility technology nowadays women can use sperm donors. There is an excess supply of sperm, virtually infinite. In this hypothetical room, even if all men refused to have children, both women could still access sperm and have babies on their own. However, women need jobs in order to raise babies because they need money. The division of labour in a nuclear family helps with this, assigning one person as the child rearer and the other as the breadwinner. If a woman decides to raise a baby on her own, she faces the struggle of being both breadwinner and child rearer. She arguably needs a man to be a breadwinner assuming she wants to be childrearer. If this is the case then men who would otherwise be good breadwinners, if they refuse to have children, can help reduce fertility rate.

If I am a man who wants to have as much impact on reducing fertility rate as possible, what should I do? I was thinking of early retirement in my thirties or forties so I can engage in full-time advocacy of antinatalism but if this means my job is taken up by a man who needs the job to have more children, I've effectively contributed to increasing birthrate. Perhaps it is best if I stay employed and deny a job for a potential male breadwinner who would otherwise take my job. However, a woman could do my job, so if I deny a woman my job, I may have denied a job for a career woman who ends up being a stay at home mother instead.

The Argument for Forced "Soft Contraception"

The nature of reality is such that there is moral nihilism i.e. there is no objective right or wrong. This gives rise to the principle of "might makes right" where power dictates everything rather than morality. A billionaire who can lobby politicians can easily get away with child rape. Even if someone believes that child rape is wrong or even if someone has empathy for the suffering of the child, the reality is that a billionaire who rapes a child and lobbies politicians can get away with it.

As a result of moral nihilism and "might makes right" this means that morality competes based on power. Negative utilitarians believe that suffering is wrong, that we must minimise suffering as a matter of priority. However, this doesn't make suffering objectively wrong if we assume moral nihilism. It means that negative utilitarians have a subjective preference against suffering. When a negative utilitarian witnesses a child being raped or a person eating meat, the negative utilitarian has a subjective preference against this. Because of "might makes right" then the only way that the negative utilitarian can express his views is through force.

There are two ways the negative utilitarian can force other sentient living organism to not harm others and impose suffering on others: (1) antinatalism to force future generations to not cause suffering and (2) force existing living organism to reduce harm.

Regarding (1) many people think that we should give sentient living organisms the freedom to choose whether they procreate or not because forcing antinatalism causes suffering. However, due to the natural biological instinct to procreate, giving total freedom to a living organism only results in heavy procreation, which results in harm and suffering. Hence there needs to be a degree of force involved. I emphasise degree of force because too much force leads to suffering, which is what we want to reduce in the first place. Hence we should not forcably surgically sterilise others. There are ways we can impose contraception on others e.g. for animals we can use chemical contraceptives, which we put in the food of animals. Animals eating this food suddenly do not feel like procreating. For humans, who can reason, intellectual arguments can be given to convince them to not procreate. Spreading antinatalism can be enough to convince someone to not procreate. Other ideologies can be spread that has the same outcome e.g. spreading homosexuality can reduce fertility rate. Furthermore, certain government policies or economic systems may reduce fertility rate e.g. it is widely considered that female education reduces fertility rate. Econonomic development and urbanisation are widely seen as an effective contraceptives, leading to many countries transitioning from agrarian societies with fertility rates of 5 or 6 to below replacement rate (2.1) within one generation thereby leading to population reduction.

For all sentient living beings, "soft contraception" should be imposed, and everyone should contribute to the imposition of soft contraception on all living beings.

Of course, just because you impose contraception on others and implement antinatalism and therefore prevent future beings from coming into existence and causing or experiencing suffering, it doesn't mean that those who currently live cannot experience or impose suffering on others. Therefore, the solution is the reduction of harm for those who are currently alive, and this should be through the legal system. In fact, the legal system and government is arguable set up for this purpose: to force those who are currently alive to not harm others and therefore to reduce suffering. The existing legal system should be refined so as to reduce suffering e.g. murder should be banned, rape should be banned, and ideally eating meat should be banned.

Comparing Hiroshima and Antinatalism

Many years ago, the US government dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The ethics of this is controversial with some saying it is murder of many innocent lives. Others claim that the dropping of the bomb forced the Japanese government to surrender thereby stopping the war early and preventing more lives from being killed.

Regardless of whether the dropping of the atom bomb is justified or not, there are interesting similarities and differences to antinatalism.

When a human (or life in general) is born, it causes suffering to others. To life is to cause suffering. We only need to look at eg meat eating. When a human eats meat, it imposes suffering on an animal. However, there is more. When a human drives a car, it causes pollution, which causes global warming and therefore imposes suffering on future generations. Not only does life cause suffering but life can experience suffering. More life means more suffering.

Similar to the logic of stopping the Japanese government from continuing the war and therefore causing more suffering, antinatalism stops life from existing therefore preventing more humans from being born and causing more suffering.

There are important differences between Hiroshima and antinatalism. Antinatalism is painless. When you do not procreate, your child does not suffer because it never exists. It is impossible to suffer if you don't exist. However, when an atom bomb is dropped on people, there is suffering. Those at the centre of the blast may be incinerated instantly and their pain may not be great, but the radioactivity causes illness and deformities even in babies. There are many pictures of Japanese babies being born deformed in the aftermath of Hiroshima.

To justify Hiroshima is to justify murder as a preventative tool to end suffering whereas antinatalism achieves the same outcome but is painless.

Furthmore, the Japanese people and the Japanese government are separate entities. To punish the Japanese people for the actions of the Japanese government is ethically analogous to raping a serial killer's daughter and threatening to kill her if the serial killer does not stop murdering others. The daughter and serial killer are two different individuals even though they belong to the same family and threat of harm on one influences the behaviour of another. If Hiroshima is ethically justified then it logically follows that rape and death threats of a child is justified if it influences another person to not cause more suffering.

As mentioned before, antinatalism has the same positive outcome but none of the negative effects. If the serial killer is never born, he cannot murder others

Reasons You Should not Have Children (Podcast)

In the podcast below, the Modern Hermit details the reasons why you should not have children. He give economic reasons as well as environmental reasons as well as reasons based on the welfare of living beings.

https://anchor.fm/modernhermit/episodes/Reasons-why-you-should-not-have-children-ea991p

Antinatalism by Ken Coates - Buddha, Schopenhauer, Zapffe and Benatar

There is a book I have finished about antinatalism called Anti-Natalism: Rejectionist Philosophy from Buddhism to Benatar which I highly recommend people read as the Kindle version is available for purchase for only $4. It provides a very detailed and accessible explanation of what antinatalism is. It also talks about similar philosophies e.g. Buddhism.

Buddhism speaks about how life is suffering and that this can be overcome by going through a process to reach enlightenment. In contrast, Arthur Schopenhaur believes you should "deny the will to live" in order to reach this enlightenment and not suffer. But I am more included to the teachings of Peter Wessel Zapffe. Zapffe talks about how most people just use distraction etc to take their mind off existential dread but this is just delusion.

Ultimately life is suffering and to reduce suffering, we should stop children, as David Benatar suggests.

Flexible Working vs Social Media

Another example of how biased everyone is to natalism can be found in different attitudes to flexible working and social media even though both are similar in that they are electronic means of bringing people together.

Society seems to be against social media and dating apps because it seems impersonal and doesn't bring people together. Usually with dating apps or social media, it creates an abundance of opportunities and so people hold out for something better. It creates higher expectations. It is bad for relationships and so contributes to less serious pair bonding and less breeding. It is against natalism, so people are against it.

However, flexible working enables people to work at home while taking care of the children. It is pro-natalist and so is looked upon favourably even though arguably flexible working pretty much has the same limitations that social media has vs real life interaction.

People are for face-to-face interaction when it comes to personal life, family, children, etc but when it comes to work people are against face-to-face interaction. This is a double standard.

Humanity Deserves Extinction and the Connection between Antinatalism and Financial Independence

Look around at everyone around you. They are mindless drones trying to do everything they can to keep their credit score healthy so that they can one day get a mortgage and car loan so that they can drown in debt.

My advice to everyone is to forget about your credit score. It should be called "slavery score" to reflect what it actually is. It is a signal to slave owners of how good of a debt slave you are. Debt is slavery.

What do you do instead of becoming a debt slave like everyone else? Don't succumb to consumerism, never have children, invest in shares and crypto, and live off dividends.

Of course, most people agree that too much debt is horrible and having children is wonderful. But the two are related. A child is a huge liability. Debt is characterised by an obligation to pay. Children are no different.

Living off passive income is great because you get an income and don't need to work. If you have debt, it is the opposite, that is, you have to work and someone else gets income for doing nothing.

Having children and living off passive income are related. How do you get the money in the first place to buy the financial assets to give you financial independence?

The answer is that you don't have children. Children are extremely expensive. The decision to never have children will save you approximately $1.1 million across your lifetime.

Of course, isn't living a childfree life for the sake of money selfish? Yes it is, but it is also highly selfless and altruistic. Breeding is the number one contributor to climate change. More people in the world means more pollution, more carbon emissions. Furthermore, as humanity grows in size, there are more meat eaters (assuming no vegans) contributing not only to climate change but also animal abuse as the need to feed more and more humans means slaughter of animals needs to occur much faster, which leads to industrial scale mass slaughter that currently kills one billion animals per week in a process so evil that it puts the holocaust to shame. This process will need to scale up much more to meet the demands of 10 billion people on the earth by 2050, and scaling up the factory farms will lead to unimaginable animal suffering.

As the apex predator, as the most dominant and intelligent and arguably most moral species, we humans have a moral obligation to impose a moral order on all animals below us, to protect the weak and vulnerable.

Instead we have completely failed. We exploit, oppress and torture the animals and destroy the earth. We have failed the world and we deserve nothing but extinction via antinatalism.

Human Extinction is the Final Atrocity

Having a child is a vote of confidence in society. If you have optimism in society and think humanity is inherently good, your child will grow up and be raised within a beautiful world.

But if we look at the state of the world today, it is hard to justify optimism in society and humanity. You only need to read the news and talk to work colleagues and family to conclude that humanity is inherently corrupt, vulgar, and utterly depraved. Society is slowly rotting under the weight of racism, sexism, corruption, slavery, torture, and greed. 

If you give birth and bring a child into this world, such an act is tantamount to child abuse. You are exposing an innocent creature to a world that is so vile and evil, and if this child has her own children, that creates more lives exposed to suffering and exploitation.

The best way to reduce suffering is to slow population growth, which means we all have a moral duty to go on a birthstrike.

Not having children not only reduces suffering but is also good for the environment. You help the forests, the mountains, the air, the ocean, the trees, the rivers, and the animals. Mother Nature is an innocent being, and she suffers at the hands of humanity, which grows like a cancer engulfing the world.

Not only is childlessness good for humanity and for the environment, but it is also good for your personal finances. This is the principle of prosperity antinatalism. By refusing to breed, not only are you engaging in a selfless act that helps the animals and the planet but you are also saving yourself hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of dollars. The cost of having a child is immense. By having a child, you are effectively consigning yourself to a lifetime of wage slavery. However, if you are childfree, Mother Nature rewards you financially for your selfless behavior.

When humans have freedom, they use their freedom to commit gross atrocities against the environment and the animals. However, an atrocity against humanity is an attack on the freedom humans have to commit atrocities on Mother Nature.

Human extinction is the final atrocity, the atrocity that ends all atrocity.

Freedom Entails Freedom to Commit Atrocity

My brother is a right wing nutcase and I keep telling him that the environment is being destroyed by humanity, but he claims that he has freedom and can do what he wants and can eat meat and kill animals, etc. I find this frustrating because it is true that he can do what he wants and this pretty much allows people to just get away with any atrocity be it environmental degradation, animal abuse, rape and torture and anything.

However, lately I have been talking about antinatalism and how I am never ever breeding and will advocate to others never to breed, and my brother seems worried by this. Being a conservative he is concerned about the low birthrate and the death of marriage, and he is a married man with many children, and I think he is angry at me for being childfree and therefore wealthy as I have zero debt and lots of investments in shares and crypto that enables me to live off passive income and take it easy in life, not stress out at work, etc whereas he is a slave to the banks constantly working paycheck to paycheck to pay the mortgage, stay-at-home wife, and multiple children. I think he is envious of me and he is frustrated because deep down he cannot do anything because he acknowledges that I too have freedom and, as is the case with him, that freedom entails freedom to commit atrocities against Natalism.

This is one of the good points about antinatalism, that you are not dependent on the benevolence of others. You control your own life so you can go ahead and refuse to breed or get a vasectomy. You can spread the message of antinatalism to others, and when you spread the message to others many of them will follow you thereby creating an army of antinatalists who will drop the birthrate.

Antinatalism is not like e.g. environmentalism or veganism that requires other people to not pollute or eat animal products. Other humans can exercise their freedom to commit atrocities on the environment or on animals. However, an atrocity against humanity is an attack on the freedom humans have to commit atrocities on Mother Nature. As such, the atrocity against humanity is the final atrocity, the atrocity that ends all atrocity.

Another good point about antinatalism is that it is profitable. By not breeding you save yourself hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. The cost of having a child is immense. Have a child and you pretty much consign yourself to a lifetime of dull and cruel wage slavery. If you are an antinatalist, Mother Nature rewards you financially for your selfless behavior.

Humans are corrupt and will always rationalize the oppression of those below them (while complaining of the oppression they receive from those above them) so the only solution is to destroy humanity.

What Do I Do If I Hate Humanity?

Stop breeding.

Every baby you make is a vote for humanity, and humanity has proven itself to be absolutely corrupt.

Humans must go on a birthstrike.

Save all your money for yourself so that you can shield yourself from the degeneracy of society. It is time to euthanize humanity slowly by not breeding. Becoming financially independent is easy and quick and doesn't require any work. Not have a family to look after and especially having children is an easy way to achieve financial independence.

Both men and women should focus on work and focus on investing so that they can live off their investments.  

Why bring a child into a world that is beyond repair? Don't have children, pocket the cash for yourself, and live a life of luxury and freedom. By doing this you set an example for others.