Many thanks for the reply. Don't get me wrong, I like philosophical pessimism, and believe there is some merit to the ideas. On the other hand there are criticisms too. For instance, you can't objectively make the claim that there is more suffering in the world than there is happiness (as Schopenhauer seems to suggest). We have no metric to measure these things, even though I am sympathetic to Schopenhauer's ideas.

Needless to say, in usual fashion, I will list my views on the subject at hand. I feel there is some scope here for discussion.

A) Humans are selfish in nature, but also compassionate. If we are to make statements from observations, we must make honest and clear observations.

B) A foetus cannot give consent to be born. I feel this is a fallacy of the whole argument. Only when an individual becomes an adult are they able to assess the issues at hand in a serious fashion. In order for consent to be given, they need to have grown into an adult, and have developed faculties. This requires them to be born.

C) A great deal of suffering can also be caused when an individual isn't given the opportunity to have children.

D) I also feel there is a distinction to be made from advocating people to not have children, and killing people (in the example given, of blowing up earth). Indeed both actions may be deemed callous and are achieving similar ends, it must be noted they are simply not the same thing.

I seem to remember you were preoccupied with issues surrounding anti-natalism. In any case, in regards to your questions, I'll bite.

1. 'Nobody asked to be born into a risky world with suffering', too late. No refunds.

2. Did you (as in, the person making these arguments) obtain consent to blow up earth?

3. I'll take a leaf from Peter Singer's book, by which he suggests we ought to consider the interests of animals. I don't think it is in their interests to be blown up, as is the case with being made into hamburgers either.

4. Suffering is a part of the human condition, along with happiness. Although, I would say, there is an onus to prevent foreseeable suffering, the kind of utopia you describe is not possible, in my opinion.

5. Did Thanos obtain consent when he killed half the world's population?

In such instances, it's best to ignore them. You can't really prove the importance of philosophy to someone who doesn't care. I might go a step further and say that their primary agenda is to ridicule you and make you feel bad. That's usually their primary focus.