Anti-natalism is the pretty much the belief that giving birth is immoral. Believers of this philosophy assign a negative value to birth. They would believe that it's better to not have been born. By giving birth, you're exposing a human to pain, disease, injury, or any other misfortune life has to offer. This can be compared to Negative utilitarianism, which gives greater priority to reducing suffering than maximizing happiness. Looking at this, I came to believe that the previous two ideas are closely related to nihilism, the belief that all life is meaningless.
Personally, I find anti natalism to be an interesting philosophy. I do agree with several principles of nihilism (mainly existential nihilism), so there would be no point in me having children. However, I'm sure a majority of people would assign a positive value to life and birth, and thus conclude that anti natalism makes no sense. We wouldn't be here if it weren't for reproduction, but then again, no one asked to be born. Are we here simply to reproduce and pass on our genes? If so, what is the ultimate goal? What exactly is our purpose? How would you explain the existence of people who aren't heterosexuals? I don't think it's wrong to have children because it appears that our purpose is to have children. However, they cannot be guaranteed a perfect happy life. If someone wants children, then they should have them, but only if they can reasonably afford and raise them properly. I believe that people who can't afford to have children shouldn't have any. You're giving them an unnecessary disadvantage and exposing them to more pain than they otherwise would have, if they had better circumstances. I'm not saying we should ban poorer people from having children (such a proposal is a violation of human rights and also impossible), but people should really be more careful when thinking about having children.
