I think you're making a leap in OP's reasoning: they didn't say that for _currently existing_ people it's better to not be existing. I suspect the point is more that it will be better for future generations to limit the _size of_ future generations, lest we increase the amount of strain on the climate/energy production/water scarcity/etc.

I also think OPs reasoning has more to do with the considerations of inflicting the potentially post-apocalyptic future on those future generations: there is an arguable moral duty to ensure that whatever offspring you have will have a (generally) good life, and that if you aren't reasonably sure of that it's A Bad Thing to have said offspring.

> they didn't say that for _currently existing_ people it's better to not be existing

He said the guys kids would be better off if he didn’t have them. And basically said he had them for selfish reasons (kids make your life better)

Seems like you’re the one making leaps, I read what was written

It is antinatalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism), and an idea to which I'm not unsympathetic.

Basically, life is suffering, and from the view of reducing the amount of suffering in the world, it is a good to abstain from bringing more beings into this world to suffer.

There’s a big difference between never existing, and existing but then dying.