Before we doubt the assertion that life is constantly improving and this positive prediction for the future, first of all it is important to mention that when it comes to creating new lives, what is important is whether the ones who are created want to be created, agree to be created, whether their creation is risk-free for them, and risk-free for others and whether it is necessary that they are created. Considering that the answer to all these questions is NO, even if it were true that life is constantly improving and will be better in the future, that still wouldn’t justify the creation of new lives. And the fact that it is absolutely uncertain that life is constantly improving and will be better in the future only makes the case against reproduction stronger.
Although it is true that in some aspects life has become safer and more convenient, does that mean it has also became better? That is not at all certain.
A classic example of this claim is the great progress in medicine. And indeed there is no doubt that nowadays there is an answer to many medical states that used to determine the fates of people, and at a very young age, but on the other hand, there is a significant increase in medical states that used to be much less common. In the past, many people suffered and even died of medical conditions that nowadays it is relatively easy to deal with, however, many more people in the modern age suffer from cancer, diabetes, strokes, various medical conditions that relate to high blood pressure and high cholesterol, various medical conditions that relate to high stress, depression, anxiety and loneliness. In all these respects things have gotten worse.
Even if there was some ground to base a claim that life will get better in the future, and even if there was a guarantee that this will happen and that there will never be a deterioration (obviously such a guarantee could never be made), it would still be immoral to create new people now, when life is not good. Is the rationale behind this claim that it is morally justified to create people now because things will be better for people in the future? Namely, it is justified to harm people now because of the theoretical possibility that for people that will exist in the future (but don’t exist now in any way and therefore wouldn’t be harmed in any way if they are never created) things will be better than they are now for people who exist? Since for there to be people in the so-called better future people need to keep reproducing until we get to that future, the meaning of this is sacrificing who knows how many people, so that maybe, someday, it will be a little bit better than the present.
Even if you still insist that life is improving and will be better in the future, this may be true, if at all, for humans only, and not only false but actually the opposite of the truth when it comes to other species. For those who are not human, life has dramatically deteriorated over the years. To be a nonhuman animal nowadays is immeasurably worse than it was in the past. The lives of animals that people don’t institutionally and industrially exploit have dramatically deteriorated as a result of habitat destruction, pollution, global warming, resource plundering, initiated population depletion, and hunting. And it is surely the case when it comes to the lives of animals that people do institutionally and industrially exploit, lives which have become over the years constant unimaginable torture from birth (a consequence of artificial insemination done by humans) to death (a consequence of cruel slaughter done by humans).
This fact is doubly important in relation to reproduction because the state of affairs when accounting for all species and not only humans is that not only has life deteriorated and the future is expected to be worse, but also, since each human harms many more animals and in a much worse way than in the past, there is no doubt that nowadays there are stronger reasons for people not to reproduce. In light of the scope of the harm people cause to other animals, the sacrifice mentioned earlier is in the order of trillions of sentient creatures.
Arguing that we need to keep reproducing so as to reach a point where things will be better, is cruel and victimizing. And this is true in principle, even if we stay in the human realm alone. For example, do supporters of such claims think that it would be justified to create people born into slavery because in the future things will be better, if the alternative was not to create anyone and by that to prevent enslavement?
Don’t misunderstand, the comparison is not between life today and slavery, but a fundamental question is being asked, is it justified to force on someone a life that is not good so in the future totally different people, that totally don’t exist now, will live better lives? Of course not. Especially considering that none of the people who will live in the future would be harmed if not created. No one is waiting to be created. No one wants to be created before creation was forced on that person. Those who don’t exist simply don’t exist and so don’t want, need, hope, expect, or wish for anything. There is no such thing as person who doesn’t exist. It’s not a case of balancing interests between those who will exist in the near future and those who will exist in the distant future since in both cases there are no interests, because those who don’t exist have no interests. It is a case of forcing lives that are not good on those who had no interest in being created before someone decided to create them, so that it will be possible to force lives that may be better on others that also have no interest in being created before someone decides to create them. In both cases if there is prevention there will be no victims. And in both cases if there isn’t prevention there will be victims: in the near future, all those created in the near future and all those who will be harmed by them; and in the distant future, all those created in the near future and those who will be harmed them, and anyone who will be created between the near future and the distant future and those who will be harmed by them, and those who will be created in the distant future and anyone who will be harmed by them.
Even if it was totally true that human life has improved, in order to justify the creation of new lives they must not only be better than they were in the past but also inherently good, wanted or needed by those who will live them, absolutely risk-free, or at least all the risks would be consented to in advance by those created, and totally harmless to others. Obviously this is far from being the case. Life is not risk-free, no one gives prior consent to all the risks and harms involved in life, life is not wanted or needed by those created, life is not good in itself, certainly not all the time, and most certainly not for everyone, and it is not harmless to others.
Therefore, even was it true that life is constantly improving and things will get better in the future, creating a new life is morally wrong. And it is even more wrong considering that there is also no guarantee that life won’t deteriorate and that the future will be even worse.