There’s a small but vocal group within the vegan community who call themselves antinatalists. Their position: having children is unethical. Not just for themselves, but for anyone. They argue that bringing new sentient beings into existence guarantees suffering, and therefore procreation is a harm we should all avoid.

I understand the compassionate impulse behind reducing suffering. I share it. But I think antinatalism is not only strange, it is indefensible as an extension of veganism. Worse, it confuses what veganism actually asks of us and what the definition of veganism actually is.

Veganism is about exploitation, not suffering. The standard definition of veganism (from the Vegan Society) is: “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.”

Notice the order. Exploitation comes first. Cruelty (which implies suffering) is second. That’s not an accident.

Suffering is incredibly hard to measure, compare, or predict. One person’s suffering metric can lead to wildly different conclusions, including eugenics, forced sterilization, or (in some interpretations) even suicide. Most antinatalists reject those conclusions, but the fact that they’re utilitarian conclusions that can be drawn from a reduction of suffering shows how slippery suffering-focused ethics can become. You can’t directly control how another being experiences suffering. You can’t know if a future child will find their life worth living. That makes suffering a shaky foundation for universal moral rules.

Exploitation, by contrast, is something you can control. You are the one doing the exploiting such as using an animal for food, clothing, entertainment, or labor. You can choose to stop. You don’t need to measure the inner experience of a cow or a chicken. You just need to ask: Am I treating this being as a resource? If yes, and you don’t have to, then stop. That is both actionable and measurable.

From Non-Exploitation to Antinatalism Is a Leap, Not a Logical Step

Here’s where antinatalism goes wrong. It takes the valid vegan concern for existing beings and stretches it into a prohibition on creating new beings. But non-existent beings cannot be exploited. Exploitation requires a victim, an actual someone who is used against their interests. A potential child isn’t a victim until they exist. You can’t exploit nothing.

Antinatalists often reply: “But you can’t get consent from someone who doesn’t exist yet, so you shouldn’t bring them into existence without that consent.”

This sounds clever, but it’s a category error. Consent is a concept that applies to existing beings with the capacity to say yes or no. To demand consent from the nonexistent is like demanding a signature from a ghost. Veganism respects the consent of living animals. It doesn’t require us to ask permission from the void. If we applied that logic consistently, we’d have to ban growing vegetables (plants don’t consent to be eaten), building houses (the land doesn’t consent), or even breathing (the air doesn’t consent). That’s absurd. The antinatalist’s consent argument only seems plausible if you forget that consent presupposes existence.

Here’s a simple test. Ask yourself: Does veganism give me a direct answer about whether I should have a child?

Clearly not. Veganism says nothing about procreation between consenting adults. It says nothing about human population policy. It says: don’t exploit animals. Full stop.

Antinatalism, by contrast, wants to tell humans what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and reproductive choices. That’s not veganism, that’s a separate totalizing philosophy that uses suffering as a cudgel to forbid something most people (including most vegans) see as a basic, joyful, and morally neutral part of human life.

You might personally choose not to have children for environmental or ethical reasons. I chose not to have children myself. This is not a judgement on the childless. That’s fine. But claiming that all procreation is unethical and labeling other vegans as immoral if they have kids, is a radical overreach. It’s also a great way to make veganism look cultish and unhinged to everyone outside the echo chamber.

What Veganism Actually Asks of Us

Veganism is hard enough as it is. It asks us to change what we eat, wear, buy, and support. It asks us to look at centuries of normalized exploitation and say no. It can include friction with the people you care about. It can mean telling grandma something she loves is wrong. That’s a massive, daily, heroic effort.

We don’t need to add “and also you can’t have children” to that list. Not because having kids is always perfect, but because veganism is about your actions toward existing beings and not about preventing existence altogether.

Focus on what you can control. Stop exploiting animals. Stop treating sentient beings as resources. Reduce suffering as a happy side effect. But leave the antinatalism to the philosophers. And leave other people’s reproductive choices alone. Veganism doesn’t require you to never have a child. It requires you to never have a victim.