Making an argument that not having kids is an extremely bad decision for whatever subgroup you are part of is trivial. The only exception would be if all possible subgroups agreed this, which seems impossible. Any group of people choosing to do this would, of course, be doomed. So let&#x27;s analyze what happens to the number of kids.<p>Since there is competition you&#x27;re even making it easier for other groups to have kids, and therefore more kids will come from them. So the result of having less kids results in more kids, especially in the subsequent generations. (assuming you&#x27;re unwilling to do what China does to limit kids)<p>So for any individual the choice is simple, but indirect. 2 options:<p>Either one doesn&#x27;t believe your argument about less kids is better. Obviously those will have kids.<p>Or one does believe your argument about having less kids, as less kids will minimize suffering. In this case, you should have kids.<p>So there is no moral argument either way. But of course we know reality : kids are a burden. People are refusing to have kids because it would (at the moment) affect them negatively. I have a large family, and so I can compare the situation of older people having (lots of) kids to the situation of older people who are alone. I don&#x27;t agree that for an individual not having kids is better, in fact it is far worse.<p>But a shortsighted view that for 10-20 years having kids will be a burden that prevents them from realizing their dreams is quite common. And I can certainly understand that argument even if I do disagree with it.<p>But &quot;the good of the human race&quot; is a horrible, misguided reason not to have kids. It is good for the human race to have a minimum number of kids (I&#x27;d guess about 2.1 on average).