What if the biggest threat to our future isn’t robots, nuclear war, or even climate change—but babies? Or rather, the lack thereof? That’s the shocking question fueling a global debate: should we keep bringing new life into a world that’s heating up and weighed down by uncertainty?

Welcome to the AI generated newscast about antinatalism, where the conversation over babies has never been more intense—or more divided. While tech billionaire Elon Musk sounds the alarm about declining birth rates, even fathering 14 children himself as his answer to a ‘civilizational collapse,’ forces on the other side argue that having kids might actually be the ultimate con. Some even call it a ‘procreational Ponzi scheme.’

Governments worldwide are pulling out all the stops to encourage baby-making. Russia brought back the ‘Mother Heroine’ medal for women with 10 kids. China dropped its one-child policy and now pushes aggressive pronatalist policies, despite reported human rights controversies. But while the world’s population policies zigzag, a new counter-movement rises—antinatalism, which asks not just if you WANT kids, but if anyone SHOULD have them at all.

Let’s break it down in this AI generated newscast about antinatalism. Australia, like many wealthy countries, has seen fertility rates plummet—from an average of 3.55 babies per woman in 1961 to a historic low of 1.51 in 2024. Elsewhere, some nations see even sharper drops: South Korea and Serbia hover below 1.1. Meanwhile, sub-Saharan Africa remains the outlier, with nearly 5 children per woman. The trend is clear: people are having their first child later, having fewer children, or skipping parenthood entirely. And even when governments make childcare and leave policies more generous, as in the Nordics, birth rates stay stubbornly low.

Why? It’s complicated. Sure, the cost of living, housing crunch, and expensive childcare all weigh on would-be parents. But as philosophers Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman argue in their book ‘What Are Children For?’, the story goes deeper. In a world that prizes individual achievement and autonomy, starting a family is less a life milestone and more an optional side quest. People want to be ‘ready’—financially, emotionally, romantically—before having kids, so many never cross that mental finish line.

So what is antinatalism, exactly? In this AI generated newscast about antinatalism, we find two main branches under its umbrella. The ‘philanthropic’ antinatalist believes life inevitably brings suffering, so it’s ethically wrong to force consciousness onto someone who can’t consent to that suffering. The ‘misanthropic’ antinatalist, meanwhile, worries about the harm humans cause to each other, animals, and the planet. Both say: if you’re not born, you can’t suffer, and you can’t add to the world’s woes.

Philosophers have always wrestled with the meaning of suffering. From Buddhism’s First Noble Truth to Nietzsche’s ‘to live is to suffer,’ the idea isn’t new. But antinatalists push it further: why make a bet on someone else’s behalf that life will be worth the pain? And in a world facing a climate emergency, the stakes are even higher. The UN’s 2021 ‘code red for humanity’ called out humanity’s unprecedented warming of the earth, while research suggests the single most effective way for a wealthy individual to reduce their carbon footprint is—brace yourself—by having one less child.

Yet, the guilt game isn’t so simple. Oil giants like BP popularized the ‘personal carbon footprint’ to shift responsibility from corporations to individuals. Meanwhile, as governments drag their feet, young people like climate activist Anjali Sharma are taking matters into their own hands, suing politicians and calling out leaders for failing their ‘duty of care.’ Unsurprisingly, Gen Z and Millennials are increasingly citing climate fears as a reason to skip parenthood. In a global survey, 39% of young people said climate policy uncertainty made them hesitant to have kids, feeling abandoned by governments and older generations.

However, the data isn’t always crystal clear. While climate anxiety makes headlines, studies show most people cite money, health, or partner issues—not the planet—as the main reason for skipping kids. And yet, in places like Australia, up to a third of young women say climate anxiety is making them rethink having children or any more children at all.

Debate continues about whether antinatalism is truly anti-human or just radically ethical. The movement’s leading voice, philosopher David Benatar, claims he isn’t interested in controlling people but wants to convince them: ‘Don’t become parents, and you’ll prevent suffering.’ He makes clear that antinatalism is neither eugenics nor eco-fascism. Instead, it’s about reproductive freedom and questioning deep-rooted assumptions. As the world faces mounting existential threats and shifting values, this AI generated newscast about antinatalism asks: is creating new life an act of love, or an act of self-interest?

In the end, the question circles back: are we just rationalizing what we already want, or is it possible to rethink the very purpose of parenthood? As we balance the joys and pains of existence, one thing is certain—this debate isn’t going away soon.