It is 2136. Every person currently alive has the nanotechnology and genetic enhancements to realise the ultimate truth: the advent of the complete eradication of suffering is not worth waiting for, and every conception is morally wrong as a result of the continued (though far less) suffering of people that are born. As a vote commences, the World Government announces on every TV and every television feed plugged directly into viewers' brains that every single person, 100% of people living, has decided unanimously that bringing children into a meaningless, painful world is a sin. However, the last child born in the world, inquisitive as they are, asks 'What do we do now?'
Yes this is wishful thinking. But if it does happen (a big 'if' there), what would we say to that child? The problem I have is that the antinatalists I have asked do not seem to have thought this far - they believe that humans should simply live out the rest of their days, committing suicide as they please or indulging in the last remaining pleasures. But, inspired by the work of David Pearce, even if he is not strictly an antinatalist, I believe that we still have more work to do (Gary Inmendham may have talked about this - I do not know). Why is it that we are so focussed on humans? Can animals not suffer? Some even have rudimentary memes - are they not worthy of our help? The main problem is, however, that no animal can adopt an antinatalist viewpoint or understand our arguments other than, I believe, humans. So strictly speaking, we would have to act without their consent. But still, I think the ends would justify the means here; wiping out every living thing on this planet, to make sure nothing ever evolves to suffer again is surely a noble cause, is it not? I know that the issue of consent is quite a tough one here, but I really don't understand what other way we could have of stopping this endless cycle of birth and suffering and death on this world. But I would like to hear any alternative theories you may have on what we must do.