Indeed. The excessive number of people on Earth is currently causing a major extinction event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction). Some might say that not having a kid is the best way to "leave something behind" for the future.

It's probably preferable to have some negative feedback in the human population explosion, without having to resort to wars.

Put another way, the easiest way to leave a legacy is to have children. But there are so many other ways!

I've never understood this argument. Nor the "if you really care about climate change you won't have kids" argument. If I have kids and teach them good values that's more future votes for action on climate change among other issues, and more people to spread good values around to others.

Don't get me wrong people who don't want kids shouldn't have kids because they'll resent their kids and likely be poorer parents for it. But claiming they're somehow doing the world a service by "not bringing more consumers into the world" or "reducing their carbon footprint" is just pure rationalization. Kids are not intrinsically a net negative for the environment or society.

Eat, play, be cute - that's a higher purpose I could get behind.

Do you have a kid? A kid is of course a distinct individual, but it is uncanny how much of you just "naturally" appears in them