I believe the environmental/climactic concerns raised by antinatalists are just a feeble deflection. They are primarily interested in personal comfort.
For some, these are possible medical complications, e.g. history of heart defects, high risk of childbirth fatality.
For others, its that they had abusive or traumatic childhoods, and either don't feel they'd be up to the task of parenthood, or associate childhood with something so unpleasant that they wouldn't want to inflict it on others.
I believe creating new life is playing 'god'.
It's easier to never exist than life life.
This has nothing to do what you thought
That's an unusual definition of "playing god", since it includes something that pretty much every life form back to the earliest single-cellular bacteria does.
I'm not sure I do this most of the time.
> can't think about the implications
I definitely don't do this bit.
Although I've not fully understood what makes that decision "selfish" in the sense that I'm not acting in a way that is a detriment to others.
If I were to create people in order to try and find some meaning but leaving them as adrift in this meaninglessness as I, would that really be a selfless act? It seems quite the opposite to me.
Perhaps this is indeed “cope” in one way or another, but it’s what I’ve felt from a very young age, though I think it took me a lot of reflection to realize it and be able to put it into words.
I am not an "antinatalist" because of this.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with comfort (or the environment or climate).
I note that the "unto" here is a very interesting word choice that hints at an underlying belief structure that drives your opinion.