"Should Vegans Be Anti-Natalists?"

This article is part of my FAQs series.

For well over a decade, I have been answering anonymously submitted questions on my Tumblr blog. Over that time, I have noticed many recurring themes, concerns, and misunderstandings.

This series brings together concise, practical responses to the questions I am asked most often, based on real conversations with people at every stage of thinking about veganism.

If you’d like to see more entries in this series, you can find them here.

The Short Answer

Anti-natalism is the philosophical view that bringing new people into existence is morally wrong because life inevitably involves suffering. Some vegans are drawn to this idea because veganism is also concerned with reducing harm.

While it is consistent to be both vegan and anti-natalist, veganism certainly does not require anti-natalism. The two positions address different ethical questions. Veganism focuses on avoiding the exploitation of animals as far as possible, whereas anti-natalism is a broader claim about the moral value of human (and sometimes animal) birth itself.

Some vegans adopt anti-natalism as a personal belief, while others reject it for ethical, social, or practical reasons. The question is ultimately a philosophical one, but those arguing that anyone who is not an anti-natalist is not a “real vegan” are overstating the case.

The Detail

What Anti-natalism Is

Anti-natalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative moral value to birth. The most influential modern defence of this view is associated with the philosopher David Benatar. The argument usually rests on the idea that life inevitably includes suffering, and that creating a person exposes them to harms they never consented to.

From this perspective, not bringing new people into existence avoids those harms. Some versions of the philosophy therefore conclude that humanity should cease reproduction, and many anti-natalists apply this idea as a moral judgement towards to individuals when making decisions about family planning.

Not all anti-natalists express the idea in the same way. Some see it as a universal moral claim, whereas others treat it as a personal ethical commitment about their own choices.

Why Some Vegans Find It Appealing

The connection between veganism and anti-natalism is often based on concern about harm.

Vegans already accept the idea that reducing suffering is morally important. If human activity causes large amounts of harm to animals, the environment, and other people, it may seem logical to question whether creating more humans increases that harm.

Environmental arguments sometimes reinforce this intuition. Concerns about climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource use can lead people to conclude that fewer humans would reduce pressure on ecosystems.

For some vegans, anti-natalism appears to extend the same ethical reasoning that is being applied to animals.

Personal Belief Versus Social Policy

Before we move into any criticism, it is important to take a moment to distinguish between personal philosophical beliefs and public policy.

A person may decide that they do not want to have children because they believe it is the more ethical choice. This is a personal decision about reproduction and bodily autonomy. There are many reasons someone might reach that conclusion, including environmental concerns or a preference for adoption.

The ethical issues become more complicated if anti-natalism is presented as a universal obligation. If the claim is that all people should stop reproducing, questions arise about how such a position would be advocated or implemented, in practical or political terms.

Historically, policies aimed at controlling reproduction have often affected vulnerable groups disproportionately. Women, disabled people, ethnic minorities, and poorer communities have frequently borne the greatest burdens of population control measures. This history makes many people cautious about ideologies that frame reproduction itself as a social or ethical problem to be “solved.”

Questions About Collective Outcomes

Some critics of anti-natalism also question its broader implications.

If the philosophy were widely adopted, humanity would eventually disappear through declining birth rates. Supporters may view this as the logical (and ultimately positive) conclusion of their argument. However, it is reasonable to raise concerns about what the transition period would look like in practice.

A rapidly shrinking population would very likely create social and economic instability. Essential systems such as food production, healthcare, and infrastructure rely on functioning societies across generations. Predicting how these systems would change under a long term population decline is difficult. If the goal is to reduce harm, it makes sense to consider the amount of harm that would be endured by the final generations of humanity, living in a collapsing society and likely dealing with the violence, food insecurity and social upheaval that this would create.

Another concern is that the harms caused by humans are not evenly distributed. Wealthy individuals and industries often have far larger environmental impacts than people living with fewer resources. Critics argue that treating humanity as a single harmful category can obscure these differences, and risks making those people who are least responsible for the climate crisis (the poor and indigenous communities) pay the highest cost for it, while the rich would likely be able to insulate themselves from the negatives of living in a rapidly declining population.

How Veganism Relates to the Debate

Veganism itself does not take a position on whether people should reproduce. Its central focus is the treatment of animals and the avoidance of exploitation where possible.

Some vegans adopt anti-natalism because they believe it aligns with their broader ethical outlook. Others believe that reducing harm is better achieved through social change, technological development, and shifts in human behaviour rather than the disappearance of humanity entirely

The two philosophies therefore overlap in some ethical concerns but remain independent positions. It is untrue to claim that a vegan who is not an anti-natalist is in some way morally inconsistent, just as it is untrue to claim that anti-natalists are any less vegan because of their position on human reproduction.

Support independent, research-based advocacy

Helping keep free, educational content online

No ads, no paywalls, no affiliate links

Donate

“Should Vegans Be Anti-Natalists?”