You represent a coherent model of (a communal and naturalistic) ethics well. I think you make a small argument against yourself though. > It's basic question

You represent a coherent model of (a communal and naturalistic) ethics well. I think you make a small argument against yourself though. > It's basic question is "how shall I live?" It is concerned with one's voluntary acts Whether or not to have children is a question of how one should live, and is concerned with one of life's most important voluntary acts. It seems like you think that existence is good per se because the idea of the good presupposes existence. If I understood that correctly, is that not circular reasoning? Your last paragraph of ad hominem and no true scottsman attacks against anyone who disagrees with you on the matter was a bit shocking after the coherence of your first. Is this the model of a "serious thinker"? (Although I know Nietzsche did indeed like a good ad hominem!) I think it's fair to say that David Benatar is a serious person, and a serious thinker. Although perhaps we have different ideas of what that entails. Just FYI, I'm not an anti-natalist (I hope not with a baby on the way!), I only shared the link because it echoes the Astronomical Suffering idea that the OP article talks about.