33. NO TO CHILDREN, YES TO THE PLANET - Should We Subscribe To Ecological Anti-Natalist Views?
We significantly damage the natural environment, making the planet worse for all the animals, including ourselves, and plants inhabiting it. Ecological anti-natalism is the position that procreation leads to more destruction of our planet and therefore more suffering so it is morally bad, therefore we should abstain from it. I shall argue why we should take this view into account. This is because we are facing a climate crisis where the most helpful and most downplayed solution will be to cut the human population. I will take into account the effects a growing population is having on ourselves and the planet. The point of anti-natalism is to favour a sustainable population size, but the goal must be extinction. If we ‘just aim’ to cut our population then we risk bringing it back to unsustainable levels. Therefore, by going on to achieve the anti-natalist goal perhaps we will appreciate other species, this planet and ourselves even more.
We are using the world’s natural resources at a colossal rate therefore we are releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than ever before, speeding up climate change. The more people there are on the planet the more resources we will use, therefore further increasing the speed at which climate change is happening. We have already shown that the earth cannot sustain the human population in our current numbers by looking at all the harm we are doing to the environment like polluting it full of plastic. If this continues then by 2050 the oceans will have more plastic than fish, in most parts of Asia fish is the main food source. By increasing our harm to the environment, we are increasing the harm we do to the human population, increasing suffering to animals.
One of the main arguments against anti-natalism is that we need to change the way we are living to be more sustainable rather than aim to cut the human population. Then the earth would be able to support the human population. If we look at the current situation only 9% of plastic is recycled, and in the city, I live in if waste is not recycled then it is sent to the incinerator. Every time a product is incinerated or thrown away all the resources that have gone into it are wasted as well, the plastic that was created from oil and the hours of work that went into the product. It may provide us with electricity but at the cost of leeching dangerous chemicals into the environment worsening air quality which will have a negative effect for anybody that breathes it in. We have shown that that in practice, as a developed nation, that we cannot live sustainably, and this is with our relatively small population of 65 million. The planet’s population is set to reach 10 billion by 2050; it will be unfeasible to say that all 10 billion of us can live 100% sustainably in 30 years judging by our current situation.
In 1980 it was predicted the earth's population would reach 7 billion by 2050. However, it is already that figure, thirty-five years earlier than predicted. The current prediction for 2050 is 10 billion. Many reject the idea that the earth's population will reach 13 billion and instead argue that it will plateau out at about 10 billion where it will slowly decrease. Therefore, we do not need to worry and so do not need to heed the antinatalists views. However, if we have wrongly predicted figures in the past, we may have got them wrong now. We must acknowledge it is very hard to predict the future. Climate change reports first came out in the mid-1950s; however, they were ignored, now we are faced with a major problem in tackling it. Like we do not dismiss climate change now, we should not dismiss the prediction of a population size of 13 billion. Therefore, anti-natalism is still a relevant view.
On the environment and climate change a major issue has constantly been downplayed - that with humans comes environmental destruction. It has been downplayed because of the emotional reaction it brings. The vast majority of the planet believes in a religion where human life is taught to be sacred and we should reproduce. It is not just confined to religion, the culture in deprived countries with agricultural economies is for families to have as many children as possible to look after the farm and their parents as they age. Even more than this, we all have the biological urge in us to reproduce. We must not let this deter us though. Every child will have a carbon footprint. As countries become more developed, the average carbon footprint will get larger due to them having more access to electricity. These new humans will need to eat. In our current system we grow food, feed it to animals then kill them in order to eat them. Therefore, creating a food chain which is prone to waste and is unsustainable. We waste a third of all the food we produce, so a third of all land that has been farmed on is essentially wasted. A growing population will mean deforestation increasing for all the food we will eat, feed animals and waste. There have been single-use plastic bags found in the deepest parts of the ocean and plastic nano-particles in the air we breathe. This list too brings an emotional reaction, but which is stronger? I believe it is the antinatalist view because a couple can either produce a child which will destroy the environment, or not, and save what we have left of the environment. I emphasise ‘what we have left’. This is because most of it has gone from the Amazon to the poles melting. This planet does not need another human, it needs to be saved from ourselves. This will help us appreciate what we have now rather than appreciating it after we have lost it.
If all the ecological antinatalists did not decide to have any children, then there would just be pro-natal people left. These people, as they have not subscribed to ecological antinatalism, are the coal lovers and climate change deniers who will further destroy the planet. Therefore, ecological antinatalism is self-defeating because the goal of reaching human extinction could never be achieved.
This seems like the biggest challenge antinatalism faces. Though it is missing the point. Antinatalism is not just about people not having children, it is about changing the culture. In the UK there are no anti-natalist laws. However, the number of children couples are having is decreasing. This change is happening due to a change in culture, that people are starting relationships later and putting their career first. One can subscribe to limited pro-natalism - having no more than one child, therefore still helping the population decrease. Therefore, reducing the human population, this means less of us to destroy the natural environment and it can be left to thrive. The more of us becoming ecological anti-natalists, the more the culture may shift for those still choosing to reproduce to at least limit their reproducing.
Whether there are 10 billion of us or 1 billion of us we will surely destroy the environment. However with a smaller population we can make the theory of living sustainably a reality. Having a smaller population makes the climate crisis easier to fight, it prevents deforestation land for farms making the forest animals homeless. Antinatalism prevents more carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere than going vegan, driving an electric car or refusing plastic will ever do. Therefore, whether it leads to human extinction or merely to there being far fewer humans on the earth, it remains the biggest thing we can do to save the planet. If we believe the planet needs saving, then ecological anti-natalism is a position we are morally obliged to take seriously.
Author: Yaaseen Baksh, student at King Edward VI Aston School
*Figures taken from Population Matters