[ergothus]

See, this FEELS like a simple choice - but think of the implications of what you're saying.

If existing is flat out always better than not - and I want to note this is NOT about suicide (ending existence) but about creating the existence in the first place) - then you're saying the moral thing is to have as many children as possible. For everyone.

Taken to a hyperbolic extreme, this is clearly ridiculous. But this isn't a strawman argument - the point is not to say "I'm right", but to find what we're really valuing. If we can all agree that drowning the world in babies that live short lives of misery is laughably ridiculous, then where is the serious argument? Finding a happy medium where we should have as many people as we can sustainably?

Is creating distinct human existences REALLY something of inherent value? Are those of us choosing to be childless for whatever reason immoral?

[userulluipeste]

I'm not sure you realize that the values that gets in one's mind and govern one's decision towards procreation is one form of current natural selection. It's funny to see some of the world's best and most promising getting bogged down by or getting utterly lost in some "smart people problem" instead of using their capacity to come ahead in the game of life.

[ergothus]

> using their capacity to come ahead in the game of life

I, as an independent conscious entity, don't get a benefit from "coming ahead at the game of life".

If someone has a child that they love and cherish, that's great. I'd rather them have a child for that reason over having one because it represents the statistical viability of their collective genetic sequences.

I don't think the examined life is something to mock and put down...nor must it result in self-sterilization.