Is a bad future better than no future at all?

In May 2025, a car bomb detonated outside a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California. The blast blew a hole in the wall of the clinic, shattering windows and hurling debris for blocks in every direction.

Fortunately, despite the power of the bomb, it did relatively little damage. None of the clinic staff were harmed, and no medical procedures were interrupted. The frozen embryos stored on site weren't destroyed. Only one person died in the explosion—the bomber.

The strange ideology of the Palm Springs bomber

Given the religious right's fulmination against IVF, you might fear that this act of terrorism heralds a new and disturbing stage of anti-choice violence. Christian conservatives have adopted a pro-natalist ideology which fetishizes "natural" childbirth, and as part of that belief, they want to outlaw both abortion and IVF. You could be forgiven for believing that they feel emboldened to enforce this view on everyone, with violence if necessary.

However, you'd be wrong. In a truth-is-stranger-than-fiction coda, it turns out that the alleged bomber wasn't an anti-choice terrorist, but the exact opposite. He was an antinatalist:

Online postings suggest Guy Edward Bartkus targeted the clinic, motivated by both "pro-mortalist" ideologies, which argue that life should be ended as soon as possible because it only results in suffering and death, and "anti-natalism," the belief that having children is unethical because it only exposes more people to future suffering and death.

...A website purporting to be made by the clinic bomber explains his views by saying in part, "...your death is already a guarantee, and you can thank your parents for that one. All a promortalist is saying is let's make it happen sooner rather than later."

As journalist David Futrelle writes:

Antinatalism is driven by one basic idea: that it is "Better Never to Have Been," as the preeminent antinatalist philosopher David Benatar put it in the title of the book that essentially launched the movement. Those who are born will inevitably suffer; those imaginary souls who remain in a state of nonexistence won't. This simple idea leads to the conclusion that the only way to stop suffering on planet earth is to convince every single person that they should never have children, which would quickly lead to the extinction of all humankind after all these non-parents die.

You may have heard of the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement," which holds beliefs along the same lines. The future they look forward to is a future where the human species has ceased to exist.

Some people espouse antinatalist beliefs in a tongue-in-cheek way; others, as a provocative exercise in academic philosophy; still others, as a corollary of a depressive and misanthropic worldview. As with most beliefs both fringe and mainstream, the vast majority of them are harmless.

However, as happens all too often in our social-media-poisoned age, when like-minded people gather in online communities, they tend to become echo chambers. The incentives of group approval and virality push them toward more radical positions. Eventually, a few disturbed individuals conclude that it's not enough to passively wish for humanity's demise; they have to take steps to bring it about. This appears to be the poisonous ideology that took over Bartkus' mind.

A hearing for antinatalism

In the name of fairness, we should try to steelman the antinatalist argument. Here's what they'd likely say for themselves.

When scientists run studies on human beings, they have an ethical obligation to do no harm, or at least, not leave the participants worse off than they were before. There's a dark history of experiments carried out on unwilling or unaware participants that did grievous harm, which is why scientific studies today have to be approved by institutional review boards or other ethical watchdogs.

In the antinatalist view, having children is like an unethical human experiment.

Life almost always includes sadness, pain and suffering, which we didn't consent to because—by definition—no one asked us if we wanted to be born. Therefore, the antinatalists say, life is a harmful condition to which no one should be subjected against their will. The only ethical choice is to stop bringing new people into existence.

To be sure, there are cases where this logic has merit. I'd agree it's wrong to bring a new person into existence in situations where it's foreseeable that they'll experience terrible suffering. For example, people who are carriers of an awful genetic disease (like epidermolysis bullosa) shouldn't procreate if they'll pass that gene on to their children. Similarly, at the other end of life, cessation of existence might sometimes be preferable to unbearable suffering.

However, aside from those special cases, this argument doesn't hold up.

The flaw in the antinatalist argument is this: it's not immoral not to get consent in a situation where it's impossible to get consent. For example, if a person is brought to an emergency room badly injured and unconscious, it's reasonable for doctors to assume they want to live and try to save them, even if they can't know for sure in the moment. In those situations, it's proper to follow the standard of what a reasonable person would want.

With that established, the question is: Would a reasonable person wish to exist? Would an average human being of normal health and intelligence regret ever having been born? Or would most people say that, all things considered, they're glad to have the precious and priceless experience of being alive?

There's no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Each person has to answer it for themselves.

Personally, I find my life not just worthwhile, but overflowing with joy. There's pain and sorrow in this world, it's true, but there's also love, friendship, pleasure, adventure, growth and learning. I try to have as little of the bad things as I can, but the good things outweigh them in any case.

There's one indecorous, yet inescapable question that has to be posed to antinatalists. If you believe that all existence is unbearable suffering... then why are you still here?

If someone espouses the virtues of veganism while chowing down on steaks and hamburgers, you might suspect that they don't really believe what they say. That's the situation antinatalists are in. Without being too explicit, there are many ways to depart this life. If a person proclaims that it's better not to exist, yet chooses to go on existing, it's fair to observe the disconnect.

Whatever the antinatalists say, they clearly find their own existence at least tolerable. This lends weight to the pro-existence side of the "reasonable person" question.

Are the antinatalists winning?

Obviously, a few random and scattered acts of terrorism aren't going to make a dent in the global population. However, we can't overlook that the global fertility rate has been falling for decades.

This isn't because antinatalist rhetoric is persuading people. Rather, it's because cultural forces and the economic incentives of modernity are pushing people toward having fewer kids.

We also can't forget the looming crisis of climate change. No one knows the future for certain, but the overwhelming scientific consensus is that a hotter Earth will result in wildfires, droughts, crop failures, resource conflicts, and in general, a worse life for billions of people—especially the world's poorest. Given the magnitude of the crisis—and the certainty that more people will only lead to faster consumption of the planet's dwindling resources—no one could be blamed for not wanting to bring children into the thick of it.

There are millions of people around the world who believe the future will be worse than the past, and are deciding not to have kids because of it. Whether they realize it or not, they're endorsing the antinatalist logic that a bad future is worse than no future at all.