Anti-Natalism from an Evolutionary Psychological Perspective

Should vegans have children? A response to Räsänen

Joona Räsänen argues that vegans ought to be anti-natalists and therefore abstain from having children. More precisely, Räsänen claims that vegans who accept a utilitarian or rights-based argument for veganism, ought to, by parity of reasoning, accept an analogous argument for anti-natalism. In this paper, I argue that the reasons vegans have for refraining from purchasing animal products do not commit them to abstaining from having children. I provide novel arguments to the following conclusion: while there is good reason to believe that factory farming results in a net disutility and involves treating non-human animals as mere means, there is not good reason to believe that having children results in a net disutility or involves treating the children as mere means. Subsequently, I respond to what I take to be Räsänen's underlying reasoning-that vegans are committed to abstaining from other practices which cause unnecessary suffering. I respond by arguing that this is plausibly false as various practices which cause unnecessary suffering are likely permissible, whereas factory farming is not.

The Causes and Role of Antinatalism in Poland in the Context of Climate Change, Obstetric Care, and Mental Health

Antinatalism is an umbrella term for numerous moral dilemmas associated with procreation. In the past few years, the deterioration of environmental conditions, social difficulties, global worsening of people's mental health, and pandemics have induced discussion about antinatalism. Therefore, we aimed to characterize antinatalists in the Polish population in terms of the frequency and description of the main reasons behind this phenomenon. The cross-sectional study was performed in the Polish population. An online, four-part survey was performed between 19 and 25 January 2022. The study group comprised 1240 respondents. Antinatalists (n = 472, 38%) were defined as people who do not have children and want to be childless in the future, whereas pronatalists (n = 768, 62%) consisted of people who want to have offspring in the future and/or already have children. The opinion that climate change is a significant reason not to have a child appeared twice as often among antinatalists. Additionally, the performed binary logistic regression model highlighted the importance of the fear of climate change as an independent factor facilitating an antinatalistic attitude. Regarding females, the following factors discouraging them from having a child were observed: fear of child's congenital diseases, pregnancy complications, dissatisfaction with medical services, and fear of exacerbation of maternal chronic diseases. Anxiety, depression, and stress were not found to be statistically different between pro- and antinatalist groups. However, further analysis revealed that female antinatalists were significantly more depressive and anxious. Our study helps us to understand why, as mentioned beforehand, around 38% of respondents prefer to stay childless. In conclusion, antinatalism views have become relatively prevalent in society, and its reasons include environmental antinatalism and medical factors, including depression and anxiety. However, better access to medical services and changes in climate politics were not found to be significant factors in encouraging society to decide to have offspring.