This is going to be quick and perfunctory, and maybe a little sloppy, because I'm honestly tired of having to elucidate this to people.

The anti-natalist position is a philosophical opposition to the replication of the human species (this can also be extended to animals in a philosophy known as "efilism", but that's a much broader topic that we will not be discussing here. At least, I have no interest right now.

Anti-natalists do not support reproduction for a number of reasons--the most commonly cited is the overpopulation of the planet (7.2 billion strong, going on 7.3 billion). Personally, I take a more ethical standpoint. Having children is wrong on an ethical level, because unborn children cannot give consent for their birth. Thus, we force them into existence for one reason or another--mostly due to our selfish desires.

I posit that there is no reason to have children whatsoever. The survival of the species is vastly irrelevant and is a pointless, futile, and insidious cause. We don't need to survive. The fact is, our reality is rife with horror, destruction, and suffering--that alone should be enough reason not to drag newcomers in, as if they'd like it here. The notion that having children is at all necessary or needed is a contrived farce built, again, by our own selfish, delusion, carnal desires. We are biologically predisposed to want to proliferate the species, but we are also intelligent enough to think about just what it is we are doing.

And it pisses me off that we are still stuck acting like fucking animals for no good reason.