I just want to make a quick clarification to the previous post, in case some misconstrue my words.
Please don’t assume that I’m saying there’s insufficient evidence to absolutely prove that it’s better never to exist. As far as I’m concerned the Benatarian Asymmetry effectively dismantles any and all arguments in favor of pronatalism and there is an abundance of other evidence that clearly demonstrates non-existence is preferable to existence. That said, even if such a thing didn’t exist (or, as is the case, that many people don’t find it convincing), it’s still up to the pronatalist to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that existence is better than non-existence. If this were a statistics problem, the statement “better never to have been” is the null hypothesis, and the null hypothesis is always assumed true until proven false. Hence it’s up to the life-affirming individual to demonstrate why existence is a benefit over non-existence, and not the other way around.
Think of it this way: in the whole theism/atheism debate, it is up to the theist to prove the existence of god, rather than the atheist to prove the non-existence of god. “No god” is obviously the null hypothesis. Yes, there’s an abundance of evidence that outright suggests the non-existence of god, but even if there wasn’t, it’s still up to the theist to absolutely prove god exists.
I hope that clears things up.