Bigger Than Benatar

Reframing Antinatalism Through Black and Indigenous Thought

Mar 14, 2025

Introduction

Who gets to define the ethics of reproduction? When we talk about antinatalism, we’re told to start with white male philosophers. But Black women, Indigenous people, and marginalized communities have been asking these questions—through lived experience, not just theory—long before Schopenhauer and Benatar put it into books.

This piece is a Black feminist engagement with antinatalism as a philosophy and a historiography. By critically examining the dominant narratives of antinatalism and bringing Black feminist thought into the conversation, we can uncover a richer, more grounded analysis of reproductive ethics.

What Is Antinatalism?

At its core, antinatalism is a philosophy that argues against procreation—not just as a personal choice but as an ethical stance. It challenges the deeply ingrained idea that bringing new life into the world is inherently good. Instead, it asks: Is it ethical to create life, knowing the inevitable suffering that comes with it?

That question alone can shake your foundation—especially when you consider systemic oppression, reproductive control, and the escalating climate crisis that particularly shapes and constrains Black life.

If you look up antinatalism, you’ll likely find it traced back to white male philosophers. Arthur Schopenhauer, a 19th-century German philosopher, saw existence as an endless cycle of desire, suffering, and dissatisfaction. His pessimistic worldview laid the foundation for later thinkers—notably David Benatar, a South African philosopher who formalized antinatalism in his book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.

Benatar’s argument is simple yet unsettling: Life contains suffering. By bringing a child into the world, you are subjecting them to that suffering—without their consent. If a person never exists, they never experience pain. Therefore, the most ethical choice might be to prevent that suffering altogether by choosing not to reproduce.

But here’s the question: Can we believe that cis men who have never faced reproductive control, forced childbirth, or the political policing of their bodies were the first to think deeply about this?

Furthermore, Schopenhauer and Benatar reflect the limitations of a philosophy that lacks intersectionality. Schopenhauer, despite his philosophical contributions, was deeply misogynistic and engaged in racist and antisemitic rhetoric that shaped his worldview. Benatar, while making bold claims about suffering, has faced accusations of racial insensitivity and right-wing ideological leanings, particularly in his dismissal of systemic oppression and his alignment with anti-DEI and Zionist perspectives. These are not neutral thinkers—they carry biases that shape their framing of suffering, ignoring how power and identity dictate who bears the brunt of human misery.

This calls into question the assumed universality of their arguments. If suffering is the core ethical concern of antinatalism, why does its leading Western philosophy ignore the specific, material suffering of marginalized people? Their analysis fails to consider how structural inequalities determine who suffers most and whose suffering is made invisible.

Black feminist thought has long engaged in this debate—but with a sharper awareness of power, history, and lived reality.

Black Feminist and Indigenous Ethics of Reproduction

For Black women, whether to create life has never been neutral. Historically, Black women have had to navigate forced reproduction under slavery, eugenic sterilization, and the medical control of their bodies. Many enslaved women engaged in reproductive resistance—avoiding pregnancy or terminating pregnancies as an act of defiance against a system that sought to commodify their children.

Black feminist legal scholar Dorothy Roberts has written extensively on the state control of Black women’s reproduction, tracing it from enslavement to forced sterilization and welfare policies that criminalize Black motherhood. In Killing the Black Body, she argues that reproductive rights cannot be separated from those who have historically been deemed fit to reproduce.

“Reproductive ethics are not just about birth—they are about autonomy, care, and the right to say no.” – Dorothy Roberts, Killing the Black Body

Many Indigenous knowledge systems emphasize ethical reproduction as part of collective responsibility rather than an individual right or obligation. Reproduction is often viewed through the lens of balance, sustainability, and communal well-being rather than as a numbers game dictated by colonial survival logic. In traditions such as those of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, decisions about birth were historically guided by considerations of how future generations would be impacted. This ethic stands in stark contrast to Western natalist ideologies.

Indigenous activist and environmentalist Winona LaDuke connects reproductive justice to land sovereignty, arguing that colonial systems have sought to control both Indigenous lands and Indigenous bodies. She emphasizes that many Indigenous traditions have long approached reproduction as a communal, intergenerational responsibility rather than an individual right or obligation.

Furthermore, Indigenous communities have resisted reproductive control through ongoing fights for reproductive sovereignty and challenging forced sterilization policies that have targeted Indigenous women globally.

“Indigenous sovereignty includes the right to determine our own futures—not just for land, but for the generations who come after us.” – Winona LaDuke

“But Don’t Black People Need to Reproduce?” The Survivalist Argument & Its Colonial Logic

A common argument against antinatalism is:

“If Black people stop having children, doesn’t that put us at risk? Isn’t reproduction essential to our survival?”

And listen—that’s a powerful argument. Black birth rates have long been viewed as a form of resistance against oppression. The legacy of genocide, forced sterilization, and displacement means that for many, having Black children is a radical act of continuation—a refusal to disappear.

But here’s the more profound question: Who benefits from the idea that Black people must keep reproducing for survival?

Settler-colonial logic tells us that survival is tied to population numbers. But if we shift our focus from mere survival to thriving, does procreation still need to be central? Black communities have always found ways to sustain themselves beyond just biological reproduction:

Adoption and communal care networks
Non-biological kinship structures
Alternative models of support that redefine family

If survival is about continuity, not just birth, then the real question is: How do we build futures that don’t demand birth as the only form of legacy?

Reproductive Control in the Present

We don’t have to look far to see what happens when reproductive ethics become politicized. The U.S. government’s increasing control over abortion access proves that natalism isn’t just a social expectation—it’s a legal imposition.

For Black women, whose maternal mortality rates are among the highest in the country, reproduction isn’t just a private choice—it’s a battleground for medical neglect, political control, and systemic violence. When reproductive healthcare is treated as political fodder, the people most impacted are the ones who already face the greatest risks.

This is why conversations about reproductive ethics can’t just be individual moral dilemmas—they must be systemic, political, and historical analyses of who can freely choose.

What Does Ethical Reproduction Look Like Now?

So, I’ll leave you with this:

Have you ever heard of antinatalism before?
Does it strike you in any way?
Are you open to ethical considerations of reproduction?
What do you think about its implications for the Black community?

The ethics of bringing life into this world is not a neutral choice. And it never has been. If reproduction has always been a contested, political act, then what does it mean to make that choice today in a treacherous world that still tries to control who gets to be born?

Bibliography

Indigenous Perspective on Reproductive Sovereignty: LaDuke, Winona. All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life. Haymarket Books, 2019.
Black Feminist Perspective on Reproduction & Ethics: Roberts, Dorothy. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Vintage, 1997.
Critical Analysis of David Benatar & Antinatalism: McDougall, Rosalind. "Is Procreation Immoral? Benatar on the Harm of Existence." Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 34, no. 6, 2008, pp. 437–438.
The Philosopher as Functionary: An Open Letter to David Benatar

Killer Instinct

Discussion about this post