Existence: Pleasure = +1, Suffering = -1; Non-existence: Lack of pleasure = 0, Lack of suffering = +1. The pleasure and suffering, if equal, cancel out and equal zero. The lack of pleasure equaling 0 is because there is no moral imperative to give a person pleasure. Unborn babies are not crying out because they are not feeling pleasure. Neither are they smiling about how they are avoiding suffering, however the very fact that suffering has been avoided is a good thing. Nobody would think that having a child in a village infested with ebola would be an ethical idea because of the potential suffering the child could experience.
But, if the pleasure of a life is arbitrarily said to be double the suffering of a life, does that mean it would be alright to have a child?
Obviously since it is highly unlikely that human extinction will be voluntary (even if it was rational), and we achieved a utopian, transhumanistic society, would that make the asymmetry no longer valid?
I can’t seem to rationalize that a single pinprick would make the life not living, if the rest of the life is filled with joy and happiness and wonder. I understand that there is no imperative to bring forth a child into this theoretically utopian world, but it’s not like it would be harmed by doing so, since the pleasure would outweigh the suffering. So, at the very least, it would seem in this theoretical situation, having a kid would be unnecessary but not harmful.