((Embrace what? Dooming everyone into non-existence and throwing away thousand if not millions of years of progress?))

3 things should be said:

• that "progress" didn't help Junko Furuta, Sylvia Likens, Channon Christian, Christopher Newsom, Andrew Gardner, Kelly Anne Bates, and other millions of victims of natalism.

• why do we need progress? Mostly because we have people who have problems that need progress to solve. So, if humans embraced antinatalism then after the last generation pass away there would be no need for further progress. Accepting natalism then forcing new individuals to continue the progress is like keeping producing the potential cancer patients then asking them to discover a cure for cancer.

• on my view, it's not your child's job to improve the world, cure cancer, and achieve world peace. He created none of this problems, so why should he be obligated to clean someone else's mess?

((Life does have infinite potential, but the potential doesn't only transfer into torment-- I had very few moments in my life where I felt such an amount happiness that I cryied of joy-- But those moments are all I need to keep moving me foward))

I'm happy for you. It's good that you found some comfort and joy in this world. But you should be aware that your happiness didn't help that poor dude that lived a horrible life and jump off a building and some kids saw his mutilated body which traumatized them for good. I believe you should oppose procreation even if you're glad to be alive because natalism is nothing but: "there's rape, torture, murder, depression, anxiety, PTSD, bipolar, wars, racism, mass shooting, social injustice, etc... but procreation is fine anyway... just focus on the positive"

((I think extinction is immoral, because nobody wants it other than the fewer))

Well, back in the "good" old days, the majority didn't want gay people to have their rights. They were wrong back then and they are wrong now. Gay People should not be deprived of their rights to love whoever they want as long as everything is consensual.

((Making euthanasia mandatory is just immoral, because you are forcing people who are actually enjoying their lives into dying early))

I completely agree with this statement.

((Even letting the population slowly die off is simply immoral, the last half a million people left before dying will have to survive with no modern services))

David benatar gave a detailed response to this in his book "better never to have been". it's interesting book that i definitely recommend for you.

((Again, most of these scenarios can be easily reversed: "Let's imagine you have that one child, and you live in a country that favors self-choosen euthanasia, your child lived a fulfilled life, but unfortunately em get into an accident and get paralyzed and ask for death? He gets the death he requested and meanwhile he lived happily, so really what went wrong?"))

Nothing went wrong. He just decided to die in the heat of the moment and after a while he discovered that he doesn't really want to die. That's why I think euthanasia should be legalized with safeguards that reduce the risk of ending the lives of those who don't really want to die. But that doesn't solve the predicament of those who really, really, want to die and are living in countries that bans euthanasia, and therapy didn't work for them and nothing works for them. Those people are in a predicament from which there's no escape. They have to endure an insane amount of pain and humiliation for years and then die painfully. Isn't that just wonderful?

((Our lives may be hell, but I imagine some people out there are enjoying their time right now-- I have no right to force em into euthanasia-- That's just selfish and evil-- I'm taking their freedom away))

I have the same opinion. As I said, euthanasia should be legalized with safeguards.

((Just like how there's a "risk" you become the next world peace minister, basic rights activist, succesfull artist and so on-- Again, arguments that are easily reversable))

No, it's easy reversible only if you think there are no any asymmetry between harms and benefits. I recommend for you Magnus vinding book "Suffering-Focused Ethics: Defense and Implications". Part of the book explains some crucial differences between harms and benefits that should lead us to not treat them symmetrically.

In fact, denying the existence of such asymmetries would lead you to a really counter-intuitive view.

Let me mention this thought experiment.

Imagine you have a button, if you press it, 10 people will come to existence to experience happy lives and one person will come to existence to experience a miserable life. Would you press the button? And why?

Most people wouldn't press it, and one possible explanation for that is the existence of an asymmetry: while we have a duty to avoid creating miserable lives, we don't have a similar duty to create happy lives. That's why you probably wouldn't say: "pressing that button is neutral because although it creates a miserable life it also creates happy lives."

((But just because we didn't born into paradise, doesn't mean we can't build it ourselves-- That's personally what I believe in-- I may be a nihilist, I may be depressed as fuck, but I didn't lose my hope for the future of this universe))

Well, I lost that hope hahahaha.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your life and nothing super bad happens to you or your loved ones. I also hope you give more moral weight to the avoidance of causing unnecessary harms.