First of all it is important to note that no one really chooses to reproduce because they want to save the human race from extinction. The function of this excuse is undoubtedly to divert the discussion from its core. And at the heart of it is the question of whether it is moral to create people, not whether it is moral to allow the human race to become extinct.
But even if this was indeed the question, it should first be answered with a counter question, which might be perceived as defiant, but is completely serious and important, and it is what is wrong with the extinction of the human race? Or perhaps in a better formulation that sounds less provocative, why is it important that the human species continues to exist?
Perhaps it is important to clarify that this counter question does not intend to ask what is wrong with people starting to die, obviously that would just be trolling that does not advance the discussion. At the core of the counter question is not what is wrong with people dying, but what is wrong with there no longer being a human species. What’s wrong with the entire human race becoming extinct, for that matter all at once by some natural factor, for example a collision with a giant meteor? Would it be a tragedy? If so, to whom? After all, there wouldn’t be even a single person left who would cry over this “tragedy”? Who is the victim of the extinction of a species if there is no one left to be harmed by it? If all humans die at once in their sleep so that none of them will ever even know it happened, how does that hurt anyone? If there is no one left to experience the “loss” of the human race, how is it even a loss? And if so whose?
The human race is not important in itself. The fact of its existence is not important in itself. It is important only because it is important to those who exist, and only for as long as it exists. But if it ceases to exist, it will not be important in itself, because there will be no one for whom it is important that it continues to exist. There is actually a kind of circular argument here, the importance of the human race lies and depends on the existence of the species, and the existence of the species in the eyes of those who think it is important lies and depends on its existence. But there is no external factor that validates this importance. It validates itself. It is important that the human race continues to exist only because it already exists. But its very existence is not important in itself. If it did not exist, or would cease to exist, with its extinction the importance of its continued existence would also disappear. There is no one who cares that the human race continues to exist except the members of the human race who currently exist, and they too are inclined to think so because of conceptual confusion. They are biologically built to think that it is important that they continue to exist, and they are biologically built to think that it is important that they continue the species, but there is no rational external justification for this inertia. It is a system whose logic is only internal. It is a mechanism that generates itself without any purpose or external justification for it. It exists because it exists, not because it should exist or because it is important that it exist. There is a human species because humans decide to produce more people, not because there need to be more people.
If there are no more people, there will be no people who will be hurt by the fact that there are no more people.
Another point that is probably important to clarify is that we are not misanthropes, we do not hate humans in principle.
The point here is that we don’t think there is any particular importance to the continued existence of the human race. Like any other species, or anything else, the human species simply exists. Its existence has no reason or purpose or special meaning. A certain species of monkeys became over time and events, the particular type of biological species that is human. It happened because of certain circumstances, not because of certain reasons. The fact of the existence of the human race has no cosmic importance and therefore it is not important that it continues to exist. And since it is not important for it to exist, an immoral action such as creating new people cannot be justified in the name of preserving a species whose continued existence is of no importance in itself. A particularly strong justification is needed in order to morally approve immoral actions, the continued existence of a species that is insignificant in itself, is no justification at all.
In principle, the fact of the existence of the human race should also not have any ecological importance in itself. If this species behaved like any other primate, its ecological importance would be completely negligible. The human species does not feed on other species specifically and does not feed other species specifically. It has no significant ecological importance at all.
But of course in practice it is exactly the opposite. The human species has a super dramatic ecological impact. However, this is a result of its controlling, oppressive and polluting conduct, not a result of the very existence of a species like Homo sapiens. Its existence has moral significance because of the very dramatic effect it has on the entire world. First of all and most importantly on other sentient beings, but also on the living conditions on the planet where it currently lives, because the dramatic climatic, geological, and chemical changes that the human race causes have a decisive effect on many other sentient beings. Almost certainly in the amount of trillions of trillions. If that number sounds inflated to you, consider how many insects are alive at any given moment, and how many of them are affected by climate change. Now consider also other biological species such as reptiles, birds and mammals, and the other impacts of the human race besides climate change, and the duration of the human race’s impact in these and other respects, especially if it does not become extinct, and it is very possible that in fact trillions of trillions is an underestimation. The influence of this species, is not only completely unprecedented, it is also out of all proportion to the influence of all the species ever combined. If there is one thing that truly sets humans apart from other species it is how much more destructive their influence is than anything else that has ever occurred or existed on this planet.
Therefore, contrary to the impression that may arise from our claims so far, the fact of the existence of the human race is not a neutral issue. From a moral point of view, the extinction of the human race is a very positive thing. The extent of the suffering, oppression and negative impact of the human race on all other inhabitants of this planet, those who lived and are no longer, those who are living now, and of course everyone who will ever live, is unfathomable. Therefore the moral implications of the extinction of the human race will be unimaginable.
As we have emphasized elsewhere on this website, reproduction is morally wrong in itself, regardless of the number of people in the world, or whether the human species is or will be in danger of extinction if everyone adopts the moral opposition to reproduction. Embracing the resistance to reproduction by the entire human race will, of course, actually lead to the extinction of the human race, but this is not our goal in itself, but rather an outcome of anti-natalism.
On the other hand, in light of the horrors for which the human race has been responsible more or less from its first day to the present day, the fact that if we do not reproduce the species will become extinct is not a reason to oppose anti-natalism, but rather another incentive to support this concept.
And a final note on this matter. Since at some point the human race will become extinct, and by the way this may happen not that long from now in view of climate change, extinction as a result of an informed decision to stop reproducing is probably the least bad way for it to happen. Any other option such as global warming, a nuclear world war, a deadly epidemic, a huge meteor or any other factor, is likely to be much worse than an informed and inclusive decision that will also allow for planning and assistance for anyone who will need it towards the end of the entire species. As mentioned, we do not think that the extinction of a species in general, and of the human species in particular, is a bad thing, but even among those who think it is, since it will come at some point anyway, and since on the way there trillions upon trillions will be harmed, isn’t it much more logical, and more importantly much less cruel, to strive for a planned and graceful exit?