As you likely saw at the homepage, I employ the term Strong Ecological Antinatalism to refer to the view that it is morally impermissible to have children because of the impact that further population growth will have on the Earth.

The view’s name comes from the theoretical features that this view accepts.

‘Strong‘: This means that the view advances a moral obligation, not just something that is morally preferable. In context, a strong antinatalist advances a moral obligation against bearing children, while a weak antinatalist advances a moral preference for not having children.

‘Ecological‘: This means that the view primarily draws normative power from ecological ethical concerns. In context, an ecological antinatalist would argue, primarily, that one should not bear children because of moral concerns directed at the environment or other eco-crises, while, say, a teleological antinatalist would argue, primarily, that one should not bear children because existence in inherently meaningless, which in extension makes childbearing a meaningless activity.

‘Antinatalism‘: This means that the view states that having children is morally wrong.

Source: https://www.zazzle.com/antinatalist_sticker-128267777042414265

While this blog claims to be one of Strong Ecological Antinatalism, the view that I shall advance in this blog has overlaps with another popular form of antinatalism, which is philanthropic antinatalism. This is an important clarification to make (i.e., I am not being pedantic here).

Philanthropic Antinatalism: The thesis that it is wrong to have children because to exist is to suffer, and it is wrong to perpetuate or increase the amount of suffering in the world.

A “pure” ecological antinatalist would argue his antinatalism solely on the grounds of our wronging the environment (or ecosystems, or the Earth altogether).

The view that I advance does not accept that the value of the Earth is sufficient to motivate large-scale antinatalism. Instead, my view amalgamates philanthropic and ecological antinatalism to justify the moral motivation to refrain from bearing children. In fact, the view that I shall argue in this blog is sensitive to interaction effects between both forms of antinatalism, its upshot being that the concerns from ecological antinatalism culminate in the greater suffering of the future generation that we shall raise should we continue to exploit the environment (or ecosystems, or the Earth altogether) the way that we presently do with population growth.