Is it morally wrong to have children?
Anti-natalism says yes. And it’s gaining ground.
The Rise of Anti-Natalism in Singapore
Results from a 2021 survey on young people’s attitudes toward marriage and parenthood. (📷: TODAY) 
Respondents’ concerns about having children. (📷: TODAY) Women respondents’ concerns about having children. (📷:TODAY) 
An anti-natalist poster at a local university. (📷: The Independent SG) 
A brochure for the theatre production Lungs, which has anti-natalist themes. (📷: Singapore Repertory Theatre)
In Singapore, 22% of unmarried millennial Singaporeans say they avoid having children due to climate change concerns. The theatre production Lungs built its entire plot around anti-natalist ideas. At a local university, a poster urged students not to procreate to “prevent future suffering”.
As support for pure anti-natalism grows, a softer version which we shall call neo-anti-natalism has quietly taken root in younger generations.
Unlike pure anti-natalism, which argues that having children is morally wrong, neo-anti-natalism claims that raising children is simply too burdensome. It stems from an ethic that prizes personal autonomy above all else, treating children as constraints on self-expression and freedom.
This belief shows up clearly in the TODAY Youth Survey:
- More than half of unmarried respondents said childbearing was not a priority.
- Nearly half feared children would hurt their career progression.
- More than a third of female respondents cited the loss of individual identity as a reason to shun parenthood.
Cost of living also plays a part: 69% of unmarried millennials listed it as a deterrent. Interviews with Gen Z and millennials by Yahoo Southeast Asia echoed similar concerns.
Why This Matters
Singapore’s ever-decreasing fertility rate has been below replacement level for decades. Meanwhile, the proportion of Singaporeans aged 65 and above is steadily increasing. Next year, we’ll pass one in five. Just five years from now, it’ll be one in four.
This puts more strain on healthcare and puts more pressure on fewer working adults as they support more retirees. Unpopular tax hikes already reflect this.
With both anti-natalism and neo-anti-natalism gaining traction, this trend shows no signs of slowing.
But if so many are embracing these views, we need to ask: are the ideas behind them sound?
To answer that, let’s explore the pillars of anti-natalist thinking: the arguments from “compassion” and “freedom”.
Anti-Natalism as “Compassion”
Anti-natalists want you to believe they are being compassionate: why bring a child into a world of suffering – of war, disease, disaster, and death?
But this argument collapses under scrutiny.
- It’s one-sided. Yes, suffering exists. But so does joy, love, and beauty. Just because not everyone experiences them doesn’t mean we get to deny future generations the chance to seek it.
- It’s fatalistic. That suffering exists doesn’t mean we can’t change that. Why not let future generations’ existence spur us to build a better world – for them and for ourselves?
This aversion to suffering reveals something deeper.
Is Suffering All That There Is?
Life is an intrinsic good. Only life can solve the problems of life, and to do so, it must suffer the consequences of life.
The anti-natalist argument that suffering negates life’s value is a self-defeating proposition. If life is so terrible, why don’t anti-natalists simply take their own lives? Because deep down, they recognize that life is an intrinsic good.
We celebrate resilience – “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is practically a cultural mantra. Yet anti-natalism contradicts this by valuing the avoidance of suffering over the strength that comes from enduring it.
Suffering is never good in itself, but it often calls forth our best: character, depth, perseverance, love. Avoiding suffering makes us forget how to endure it or help others do the same. True compassion says, “I’ll walk with you,” not “you’re better off never born.”
The Eco-Fascist Trap: Environmentalism Gone Awry
Then there’s ecological anti-natalism, which says we should stop having children to save the planet. It sounds noble – fewer people means less consumption and fewer emissions.
But this logic is self-defeating. Reducing human births may lower emissions, but it also leads to more suffering. With fewer people, who will care for the elderly, grow food, or keep society running?
Worse, this risks sliding into eco-fascism, which holds that only certain people should be allowed to have children. What begins as a personal choice of “should I have kids?” can easily become a dangerous question: “Who deserves to?”
Why? Because some groups will be told they shouldn’t have kids, like the poor because they “can’t support them”, or large families because “too many kids” create “excess strain” on the planet. You may have already heard this in phrases like “let’s take care of the people already here“.
That’s ideology in disguise, not environmentalism. It uses the motte-and-bailey tactic of presenting a soft message in public, while hiding more extreme and indefensible views underneath. It also vilifies humanity’s natural drive to reproduce in the name of protecting nature. That’s dangerous.
Consent: A Philosophical Quagmire
A related argument hinges on consent. Anti-natalists argue that children don’t consent to be born, especially into a world full of suffering. An Indian man even sued his parents for the audacity of giving him life, because life entails suffering, and since he didn’t consent to being born, his parents are at fault.
But let’s be real: Consent is not the be-all and end-all. When you’re wiping a toddler’s nose or making them eat their veggies, you’re not violating their autonomy; you’re caring for them.
The notion that consent is the highest value is absurd. Consent is not required when creating sentience. It is the privilege and prerogative of the creator to do so. Likewise, consent is not required when raising children and caring for them.
Imagine a world where parents had to get written consent from their infants before changing their diapers. Absurd, right?
Anti-Natalism as “Freedom”
After decades of rapid growth, Singapore’s story has become one of prosperity. But with rising standards of living come rising expectations and perceived costs. We worry that kids will negatively impact our lifestyles. This is the argument from “freedom”.
This argument is based on full self-ownership, which refers to the idea that each person has the strongest moral rights over their own life. This includes the right to control what we do with our time and lives.
Neo-anti-natalism draws heavily on this idea by arguing that childbearing infringes on personal autonomy. Parenthood, they claim, limits your time, your life, and your identity.
Think about it. Quiet evenings, hobbies, and career goals all seem harder with a child. So neo-anti-natalists opt out, not because children are immoral but because they feel like constraints.
That’s problematic for two reasons.
1. It Is A False Dichotomy
Why assume that being a parent means losing yourself entirely?
Parents can still have hobbies, career goals, and relationships. Parenthood might require adjustment, but it doesn’t erase your identity. Instead, it reveals who you can become.
2. It Undermines More Than Parenthood
This logic also undermines marriage. Like parenthood, marriage involves sacrifice, a shift in priorities, and deep commitment. Yet, we accept these as part of what makes marriage meaningful. Why treat children differently?
Ultimately, behind the argument from “freedom” lies the same fear of hardship that anti-natalists fear bringing children into. But self-indulgence never shaped anyone. Parenthood often does.
When Economic Booms Lead To Social Banes
The argument from “freedom” didn’t come from nowhere.
Our Third-World-to-First leap raised living standards and with it, individual expectations. Add to that a vision of fulfilment that revolves around career success and FIRE, and it’s easy to see why many see kids as derailing their dreams. All this while rising costs pressure both spouses to work, making parenting seem impossible.
We’ve become victims of our own prosperity. Raising the next generation is no longer a shared communal purpose but an obstacle to avoid. Whether it’s the rising costs of child-rearing or the trend of being “child-free” instead of “childless,” the message is clear: Kids are liabilities.
That needs to change. Children aren’t just private joys, they’re public goods. If we want more families, we need a society built around families, not just work and wealth. We need housing that’s accessible and family-friendly, work that encourages parenting, and a culture that rewards care, not just productivity.
And here’s why that matters.
The Bigger Picture: Society Needs Children
We’re often told that having kids is a “personal choice.” And it is. But when enough people choose against it, the effects aren’t just personal.
As philosopher John Rawls put it, “reproductive labor is socially necessary labor”. In other words, if we don’t have children, society can’t sustain itself.
Fewer children today mean fewer workers, caregivers, and leaders tomorrow. Communities fade. Institutions fail. And future generations miss out on what we inherited: education, order, and opportunity.
Rely too much on immigration, and we risk losing our national identity and becoming a city where people come for the good times and abandon when times get tough, with existential consequences.
The point isn’t that we should have children just to replace ourselves, or that immigration is bad. The point is that anti-natalism, if widely embraced, threatens the survival of society itself. Immigration should complement, not replace, the local population. We can’t keep using it as a quick fix for deeper demographic problems.
Parenthood isn’t just lifestyle, it’s future-building. Just like voting or paying taxes, it contributes to a common good. Downplaying that in the name of neutrality leaves us blind to the bigger story we’re part of.
Happiness Isn’t Everything
Anti-natalists believe life must be happy to be worth living. So, they avoid children, either to spare them from an unhappy existence, or to preserve their own happiness.
But there’s more to life than happiness. Even in suffering, there can be meaning, as numerous inspiring stories show.
And yes, raising kids isn’t always fun. But parents still say it’s the best thing they’ve done. Not because it brought them constant pleasure, but because it gave them purpose and satisfaction. Parents also say their lives have more meaning than those of non-parents.
Indeed, social psychologist Roy Baumeister and others found that while parents may not report being happier, the more time they spent caring for their children, the more meaningful they said their lives were.
We don’t just live for comfort. We live for meaning.
Why Having Children Still Matters
Shaped by prosperity and culture, anti-natalism fixates on suffering, but neglects love, joy, and beauty. It celebrates freedom but forgets the good that comes from sacrifice. Widely embraced, it puts society’s future at risk.
Anti-natalism doesn’t just misanthropically project existential angst onto children, it is also inherently selfish. Anti-natalists live in a society sustained by others’ children, relying on their labour and enjoying its benefits while refusing to pull their weight, depriving future generations of those benefits.
At its core, anti-natalism undermines itself. Every anti-natalist lives only because others chose to have children. If embraced, it dies out with its adherents.
Yes, not everyone can be a parent, and that’s okay – singlehood is good too, and some couples have fertility issues. But that’s not anti-natalist. There’s a difference between being unable to have children and being unwilling to.
Children require sacrifice. But they offer something irreplaceable. They shape us, stretch us, and root us in something beyond ourselves.
So, the next time someone tries to sell you on the virtues of anti-natalism, remember: Life’s challenges are not bugs; they’re features. And it’s through these challenges that we find our greatest joys, deepest meanings, and highest purposes.
