[gridlockd]

> You are asking if a creature who doesn’t exist is less happy than a creature who exists to suffer.

No, you are changing the question. I'm not asking "a creature that doesn't exist", I am asking you which is better: To never have lived, or to have lived in terror. I'm also not talking about happiness. Life isn't about happiness and life in nature isn't "happy" either.

Perhaps you can answer a different question: Would you rather die (i.e. not exist) than live such a "life of terror"? If you knew you were slaughtered at age thirty, would you kill yourself at any earlier age?

> We aren’t going to see a huge wild farm animal population come into existence if we stop breeding them - nature could never support their population.

Even so, nature's answer for population control is starvation and predation. Natural life is a constant struggle for survival. Life on a farm is not such a struggle.