Hey gang. I feel I should make a brief post about Anti-Natalism correcting a misunderstanding that I see even some A.N.s fall into. Namely that the meaninglessness of existence isn't significant unless it causes humans or other beings suffering. In a way it does because its a connection to the description of the Universe as apathetic to human/biological concerns/wishes, but the Existential notion they are describing is really the cliche'd man's search for meaning.
If the universe had nothing in it would it matter it was "meaningless?" Of course not. If it only had unintelligent (non-sentient) beings in it that felt either only pleasure or only pain, would it matter if there was a design or "purpose" behind that suffering or pleasure? No, it wouldn't. Meaning isn't significant, it matters only to the extent that it causes or alleviates suffering in humans or other animals/creatures. Anti-Natalism is grounded in two ways: Pain is evil and relinquishing it is the only primary moral imperative; and consent. As a Negative Utilitarian the former holds far-greater sway to me and I've noticed most A.N. aspects focus on just that, but I also think consent is a convincing argument if not a valid one.
And as Utilitarians we must consider the possibility that it may (or may not) be best to convince someone of something even if its not necessarily true. Though as a materialist I believe biological and economic forces are far-more important than a person's conscious beliefs - though it would be foolish to say they are without influencial affect in our society.