>Also, I would be interested what you think the crucial difference is between not continuing to live and not being born.
It is the difference between killing two children and deciding to not have 10 extra ones.
That makes no sense, since children want to live, so you can't apply the logic to children, only to yourself.
So I ask you again, would you prefer not to have been born? And if yes, what's your argument for continuing your own life?
People that don't exist have no wants.
People that exist have wants.
I exist, yet the dozen other children my parents could have had don't. You can ask them if they want to have been born, but they don't have an opinion on the matter.
Which part of that do you have trouble with?
If they will have wants once they are born, bringing them to the world is justified. Your reasoning makes no sense to me.
Then why aren't you bringing in as many children into the world as you can? The average couple can have 12 children in their reproductive lives. Are you on track to reach that goal?
It was you who said that the important distinction is desire to live, I showed where that reasoning leads, and you agreed that it's nonsense. I have nothing more to say.
I'll have enough children to sustain humanity and keep consciousness in the universe, having 2.1 children still means a potentially infinite line of descendants, so no reason to have 12. 12 would decrease the average well-being, while having none would decrease it as well.
Also, I would be interested what you think the crucial difference is between not continuing to live and not being born.