@Leon, @Javier
Given Test tube babies (say we only allow one egg to prevent killing the others), procreation is a different issue compared to having sex with one’s spouse.
Apologies for the scenario below.
Theorectically, say, even if there’s a hypothetical scenario where there’s a planet with only females and one monk, there’s a strong philosophical need to have procreation for humanity there, then the females can just wait until the monk have a wet dream and get the semen from his robes. The monk doesn’t have to break precepts or disrobe, although it would be very hard to practise, unless the monk live in seclusion.
So the philosophical grounds for natalism or anti natalism can be considered from other viewpoints as well, not just abstaining from sexual activity.
My take on antinatalism is that we are not advocating for all humans to stop procreating. The sex drive is strong, the cultural, economical reasons are strong, some people will eventually want to or accidentally have some kids. From Buddhist point of view, if we wishes for the Buddha’s dispensation to last at least until it dies out and not due to humanity go extinct, we should also play some part in helping to preserve and propagate humanity. This includes going vegan to help reduce global warming.
From the perspective of growth of religion prediction (Google it), Buddhism is estimated to have less percentage of adherence compared to total humanity because Buddhists don’t procreate as much as the other religions. Or that Buddhist parents don’t play a good enough role to indoctrinate/ teach/ brainwash their kids into the Dhamma.
So from the perspective of the Buddhist religion itself, the advice and strategy to give to Buddhists for the sake of getting more to come into contact with the Dhamma is to promote Buddhists having more kids. For the sake of global warming, overpopulation, we would prefer if people of other religions don’t procreate as much, or that antinatalism succeed in being the philosophy for them. This strategy if adopted by all religions, would actually contribute a lot more to overpopulation as a strategy for “war” of attrition to get the most good for oneself at the expense of others.
However, I think the Buddhists are in general too kind, good and nice to adopt those strategies. By seeing just so many people here who commented not to have kids (ok, let’s make it a poll below), we can see that Buddhists are more towards willing to take a hit for the general wellbeing of everyone.
Do you plan to have kids?
So in conclusion, the antinatalism movement has its uses in reducing overpopulation, since people’s actions are determined by views/philosophy. Yet, there’s also reason from Buddhist point of view to have more kids who can become Buddhists (rarity of human life and Buddha arising in the world). It’s really up to individual families to choose which philosophy they wish to hold as their circumstances stands.
In economic terms, as the cost of kids goes up in developed countries, people will tend to have lesser kids/ no kids. So the motion of urbanization, globalization, more donation to poorer countries to help distribute wealth of nations can help in reducing global birthrates. This is actually possibly the stronger determinant in human procreation than mere philosophy.