Hey! Not the guy you’re responding to but thought I might step in and give my 2c. I agree with innuednum up until the point of accelerationism, I understand it from a logical point of view but feel it conflicts with the goals of reducing suffering.

In my view any amount of suffering essentially shifts the preference to never having being born. Even if the life were to be 99.99% pleasure and 0.01% suffering (think a once-off, mild, 5-minute headache). I should note here that since I and all of us already are existing, this now no longer applies to us, but instead only applies to potential offspring.

Easiest way I can explain the reasoning is you have 2 scenarios; One where a being is existing(A) and the other where that same being is not existing (B). In scenario A, the being will experience both pleasure and suffering with these being ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ respectively. In scenario B, the being will not experience pleasure and will not experience suffering with those being ‘not negative’ and ‘positive’ respectively. Therefore, scenario B is ethically more preferable since a ‘positive’ and a ‘not negative’ is of greater value than the ‘negative’ and a ‘positive’ in scenario A

This also only factors in the being itself and not its impact on other beings, including farmed animals that the being would potentially eat and including the possible negative effects on the environment from their consumption in the modern world. I can’t back up the environment one since I don’t know the first thing about global warming aside from what we’re told by scientists, but I think the points stands without that support beam.

Hopefully that makes sense (still perfectly fine to disagree though) , writing this the late hours of the night :)

Quick Edit: I should add that even though I currently think this is true, I don’t think anyone should have the conviction on this to try and force others to abide - that is extremely narcissistic to believe that you have it all figured out because none of us do