[Dent]

Lost my post.. motherfucker, i'm just posting links.
The philosophy section of reddit are discussing the book this week. (I stumbled upon it by accident, honestly guyz)
[Weekly Discussion] Benatar's Argument for Anti-Natalism : philosophy

Child: Exists Pain (-), Exists Pleasure (+)
No Child: No Pain (+), No Pleasure (0)
There is also
Child: Exists Pain (-), No Pleasure (0)

Pearce reviewed the book and finds its weak point.

Originally Posted by Review: Better Never to have been

Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Anti-natalism will fail because any predisposition to share that bias - or rather, to share the veridical perception of Darwinian life's harmfulness - will be weeded out of the population. Anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners.Review: Better Never To Have Been: the harm of coming into existence by David Benatar

If the HI comes to pass there will only be
Child: No Pain (+), Exists Pleasure (+)

But is it moral to have children in the meantime, if you take the best current measures to avoid the child suffering? what if xyz happens that we can't currently predict or control?
This is about the best anyone could do, it's not very good.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
the upcoming CRISPR
a roof and stocked fridge etc.
I guess you could wirehead your child, but again what if xyz.

Voluntary human extinction is a terrible selfish idea if you consider suffering in the universe as something we have a moral obligation to, It may take 5 million years or more until marsupials get to take a shot at the problem.Convergent evolution