River Safari, Singapore
The Environment Argument can be thought of as the bedrock of ecological antinatalism.
It starts with the premise that unsustainable, large-scale ecological harm to the Earth is morally wrong. That is, it is morally wrong (or blameworthy) for us to pollute the Earth, or to slash and burn large numbers of trees, and so on. Conversely, it is morally praiseworthy for us to promote the wellbeing of the Earth in ecologically sustainable manners, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, and refraining from deforestation and hunting beyond renewal rates of these resources.
An uncharitable sceptic may claim that this premise is false because the Earth is not wholly morally considerable. There are many instances where we deem it good to cause large-scale ecological harm. For instance, driving the smallpox virus to eradication seems to be an entirely praiseworthy achievement. This moral schizophrenia demonstrates an inconsistency in our environmental ethic — how can we say that unsustainable, large-scale ecological harm is morally wrong, and yet think it morally choice-worthy to drive an entire species of virus into eradication?
An elegant solution to this tension is simply to accept that the Earth is not intrinsically morally valuable. If we accept this, we may posit that the Earth is only morally valuable because humans said so. Just like a priceless vase is only morally valuable because someone ostensized its moral value (and not that it is valuable in and of itself), the Earth is valuable because it is our only home. To stretch the metaphor, destroying one’s home is obviously unstrategic — but to rid one’s home of mildew is obviously strategic. It is morally compatible for one to place moral value on her home while eradicating pests that threaten her safety in her home.
Where antinatalism is concerned is the observation that birthing children is a significant harm to the Earth. This claim can be made from the simple observation that for all human beings that exist, they inadvertently and unavoidably will consume resources across their lifetimes. While our resources are certainly renewable, we are simply consuming said resources at a rate that exceeds their rate of renewal. Our reliance on fossil fuels, for example, is only sustainable inasmuch as we do not consume more fossil fuels per unit of time than the planet can produce.
From the perspective of the mother, father, family members, and friends, the arrival of a new baby is usually considered a wonderful event, as indeed it is; but from the perspectives of the world’s natural ecosystems, another human being means additional strains on already severely strained resources. – Hall et al., 1994, p.522
This problem of necessary consumption, multiplied billionfold across the planet, paints a bleak picture of our continued interactions with the planet.
As simply put as possible,
Source: https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/climate-change
If population growth continues at its current rate, then there will be more and more people living on the Earth.
If there are more and more people living on the Earth, then there will be more and more consumption of natural resources.
If there is more and more consumption of natural resources, then there will be more and more harm done to the Earth.
Since harming the Earth is morally wrong, then sustained population growth is morally wrong.